Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditSame-sex marriage just made a major comeback as a campaign issue.
Today's ruling by the California Supreme Court that a reasonable reading of the state constitution prevents the denial of marriage protections to same-sex couples means that both Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain -- as well as congressional candidates of each party -- will be debating the most contentious of social issues this fall.
The California decision is, of course, a legal one. As the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force explains, "Today's decision overturns a ruling by the California Court of Appeals, which had reversed a trial court's decision that the California Constitution forbids the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. California first established statewide domestic partnerships in 1999 and greatly expanded them in 2005 to include broad family recognition. In 2005 and 2007, the California Legislature passed measures that would have ended the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the legislation both times, saying the California Supreme Court should resolve the constitutional questions presented by California's discriminatory marriage laws. With today's decision, California joins Massachusetts in extending full marriage rights to same-sex couples."
But, as it arrives in presidential election year, the decision of the highest court in the nation's largest state is also a political one.
In California, the political test could take the form of an initiative vote this fall. Conservative churches and grassroots organizations have filed petitions to force a referendum on whether to enact a California Marriage Protection Act that would amend the state constitution to require discrimination against gays and lesbians.
But the debate won't stop in California. Especially if the initiative vote is scheduled, there is no way that the candidates for president won't be drawn into the fight.
That's got some Democratic strategists scared. They think the only way to deal with social issues is to avoid them.
Those strategists are wrong. And if Obama and other candidates listen to their bad advice, damage will be done to the party's prospects.
The fact is that the Democratic party has in recent years moved tentatively toward being a pro-gay rights party -- just as it moved tentatively in the 1950s toward being a pro-civil rights party. The process has been slow, and it remains incomplete. But most Americans see Democrats as supporting gay rights, just as they see Republicans as opposing equality.
Democrats can't change that fact.
And they shouldn't try to.
Instead, if Democrats are smart, they will embrace the opening created by the California Supreme Court decision.
To do so, they need to learn from mistakes of the past.
In 2004, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry was generally good on issues of concern to gays and lesbians -- and the community's straight supporters. But the senator from Massachusetts didn't want to be too good. And his ham-handed attempts to avoid appearing to be overly sympathetic to the rights of same-sex couples helped Republicans portray him -- fairly or not -- as a man of fluid principles.
The smarter approach is to err on the side of the future and say that the law should not get in the way of love.
That's what U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, did.
Feingold didn't fool around with talk of civil unions or lesser compromises. The Wisconsin Democrat always stood strong against moves to exploit the marriage issue and finally came out as an explicit supporter of the rights of gay and lesbian couples to wed.
Feingold was always blunt. He told voters that moves to bar same-sex marriage were "mean-spirited attempts" to develop wedge issues a singular political purpose: "to hurt Democrats who are against discrimination."
But how exactly do the Democrats get hurt?
It's not the wounds that come from standing on principle that do them harm.
It's the wounds that are self-inflicted by candidates who are afraid to level with the electorate -- and to use debates over social issues as what the late Paul Wellstone referred to as "teaching moments." (Wellstone, who voted in 1996 for the federal Defense of Marriage Act would later express regret for getting the moment, and the issue, wrong.)
In 2004, in Wisconsin, when Kerry was running cautious for the presidency, Feingold ran dangerous for reelection. Both faced serious, big-spending Republican opposition -- indeed, Feingold's opponents went much further than Kerry's in suggesting that their Democratic target was soft on terrorism.
Yet, when the votes were counted, Kerry won Wisconsin -- a state that, lest anyone think it to be unduly progressive, would in 2006 endorse a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage -- by barely 11,000 votes.
On the same day, Feingold won by 330,000 votes.
By any measure, a lot of voters who opposed same-sex marriage voted for Feingold. Indeed, it can fairly be suggested that hundreds of thousands of "values voters" who might have differed with the Democratic senator on specific social issues ended up voting for him because they were impressed by his frankness and his willingness to take political risks to uphold his values.
The point here is not to suggest that Feingold's stance on gay rights accounted for his advantage. The point is that Democrats who campaign from a place of confidence and strength make a better impression -- and win more votes -- than those who campaign from a place of fear and reaction.
Marriage is a "religious" act decided by religions; civil rights and treating people equally under the law is a matter of "state", making civil unions relevant to this discussion.
One who favors civil unions should not be portrayed as trying to be "not too sympathetic to gays and lesbians", as treating people equally under the law IS the critical issue.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/15/2008 @ 5:06pm
I think you need to remove "refuse to" from the last paragraph.
Posted by yonder at 05/15/2008 @ 5:14pm
<snort> "The Defense of Marriage Act".
There are only two people in the world that can threaten or cheapen my marriage: Myself and my wife.
Posted by Balrog at 05/15/2008 @ 5:14pm
Get real John Nichols, none of the presidenial candidates are going to tread on that issue. Especailly Obama. But I'm curious as how he would try and spin that one, being a devote christian and all.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 @ 5:29pm
Bill Maher joked that the 2004 election was "a referendum on boys kissing", as if there weren't more pressing issues at the time. Now we get to re-introduce this wedge issue just in time for the 2008 election. There's nothing like a little homophobia to rally Republican voters.
Posted by Be Good at 05/15/2008 @ 5:34pm
"There's nothing like a little homophobia to rally Republican voters."
Posted by Be Good at 05/15/2008
There's a lot of homophobia on the democratic side too.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 @ 5:39pm
Gay marriage is an election loser no matter which party backs gay marraige or is against it, the other truth is conservatives have no problem with unions but balk at the religious sacrement of the definition...and gays are not a big slice of the repub voters, so it doesn't hurt the GOP either way..the Dems are the ones to lose by backing it, for the number of gays they may pick up would be more than canceled out by the middle supporters it loses, and Obie can not afford to lose any more of the middle than he already has......most Americans feel civil unions are the eaiest way out of a nightmare battle.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/15/2008 @ 5:44pm
MBB-Slavery and segregation were legal and supported by much of the public until some activists changed it.Sometimes the public is wrong and more enlightened people must stand up in the form of activists.It's sad that so many in the public care about what gays do and blame them for terrorist attacks and natural disasters and other such lunacy and sane people need to stand up and say-"you people need therapy"."Judge not lest you be judged" is a good teaching and something most Christians need to start doing rather than blame gays for their failed marriages , terrorist attacks and natural disasters.McCain is an adulterer who dumped his handicapped wife for a rich young one who he could live off of so he should not be discussing marriage except to say that he is a failure at it.He should treat his wife better,too.He is a hypocrite.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/15/2008 @ 6:16pm
Indeed, this will energize Christian Conservatives.
Obama has said that he doesn't support homosexual marriages so the tack will probably center around the importance of who will nominate future Supreme Court justices and the fear that an Obama presidency would lead to more justices like those in the California Supreme Court.
That is a winning theme with Republicans and conservative independents and Democrats.
In the meantime I have to explain to my grandchildren why we have courts that think that perversion is good.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/15/2008 @ 6:20pm
LvLiberty-It's quite sad that conservative Christians are energized whenever they get the opportunity to judge others.Maybe,they ought to look at themselves rather than always pointing the "perversion" finger at others.What reason did Paul give for getting married?Did it not have something to do with getting sex and that's it?
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/15/2008 @ 6:34pm
MBB-There is nothing in the constitution that forbids gay marriage.A judge is supposed to go by laws and the state and federal constitutions and are not bound by the beliefs of a bigoted public.Activist judge has no meaning and is defined as any judge who does something I disagree with.No one has respect for the constitution and use it when it agrees with their views and ignores it when it doesn't.Kind of like the Bible.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/15/2008 @ 6:45pm
MBB-It is their job to decide if something is constitutional or not and there are other courts that decide if they agree with those four judges you decided are activists.We must remember that women had no rights,blacks had no rights,the disabled had no rights,workers had no rights,children had no rights,etc. until some type of activist fought to get them rights.It's quite sad that in a country like America that activists have to fight, and often die, just to get everyone basic rights.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/15/2008 @ 7:02pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/15/2008
They didn't change a law. They said the state Constitution didn't allow the ban. That's not changing a law that is calling a law un-Constitutional which is the state Supreme Court's job.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2008 @ 7:15pm
Well, this is certainly a debate the country needs to have. The question of whether gay marriage should be allowed is a political issue, not a legal one.
Posted by pontificus at 05/15/2008 @ 7:18pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/15/2008
On top of that. Just because a law was passed 100 years ago doesn't mean it was correct 100 years ago. It just means that the judges on the court didn't care at the time. Just because a law stays doesn't mean the law is Constitutional. It just means that the people appointed and the public opinion may allow an un-Constitutional law to stay as it is. You can argue that the laws that allowed slavery and the Jim Crow laws were always Un-Constitutional. What changed to get rid of them? I think it was public opinion that black people were actually human and not animals is what changed. So you may call them activist judges and people who are just acting on opinion but until you actually EXAMINE the California Constitution to see what they are referencing that makes it un-Constitutional then your opinion is worthless because you don't know if they are correct in their judgement or not.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2008 @ 7:23pm
OHHHH NOOOO gays are getting married. It's the end of the world! If you don't want to allow gays to have civil unions because it's against religion which is basically exactly why people don't want gays to get married. Then you have to take away all tax benefits for getting married. If the validity of WHO can get married is based on religious law then your religious unions are no longer state. So you lose your ability to get tax deductions for a 2 person home. You can still have them for your kids. But not for your marriage because then the marriage no longer has to do with government and is only religious. If civil unions are permitted then people have to be able to marry whoever they want no matter what sex.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2008 @ 7:28pm
Can I ask who gay people are hurting by being married by the way? Like what is so negative about them being married? Don't quote me scripture because if you quote scripture to me I will quote Doctor Seuss to you.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2008 @ 7:29pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/15/2008
IM, all those rights you mentioned were changed through constitutional acts or amendments by congress.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 @ 7:30pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/15/2008
When Lincoln fought the South over slavery and then freed all the slaves the majority of public opinion was in opposition. Lincoln was hated by a lot of America not just the South but he did it anyway. So not everyone only acts through public opinion. Which is why he was assassinated.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2008 @ 7:32pm
lvliberty1--
Your real problem is in calling it a "perversion." That's like calling red hair a perversion--simply being outside the statistical norm doesn't make something perverse.
Yes, Virginia, homosexuality <i>does</i> have biological roots, and yes it <i>does</i> occur in other species besides humans. Please crack a book so you don't pass both your ignorance <i>and</i> your bigotry onto your grandkids.
But to put it in what are perhaps more familiar terms to you, "This is the gay the Lord has made." Why do you hate this aspect of God's creation?
Posted by thm61 at 05/15/2008 @ 7:37pm
Can I ask who gay people are hurting by being married by the way? Like what is so negative about them being married? Don't quote me scripture because if you quote scripture to me I will quote Doctor Seuss to you.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2008
C3, I cannot support gay unions or marraige because it goes against the principles of my faith.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 @ 7:39pm
When Lincoln fought the South over slavery and then freed all the slaves the majority of public opinion was in opposition. Lincoln was hated by a lot of America not just the South but he did it anyway. So not everyone only acts through public opinion. Which is why he was assassinated.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2008
C3, Lincoln didn't fight the south over slavery, he fought the south to prevent them from ceeding from the rest of the country. The abolishion(sp) of slavery was an afterthought.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 @ 7:44pm
ACook-The groups I mentioned have rights because of activists and not congress.If we waited for congress to do something you would have no vote or any rights at all.Do you really believe that most men decided to let women vote because we're nice?If we allowed it then it had something to do with getting sex.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/15/2008 @ 7:44pm
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008
Yes but your faith has nothing to do with law. Law can't be based on religious rules. Since I am not of your religion should I be forced to follow it's laws? If I came from a religion that said that every day you had to flagellate yourself if I moved the pass that into law would you let it happen? Or maybe a not so ridiculous example. Let's say I wanted to outlaw allowing churches to exist in the US because my faith said that places of worship were evil. Would you allow it?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2008 @ 7:52pm
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008
My point is making illegal slavery was still against popular opinion.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2008 @ 7:55pm
"But to put it in what are perhaps more familiar terms to you, "This is the gay the Lord has made." Why do you hate this aspect of God's creation?"
Posted by thm61 at 05/15/2008
THM61, homosexuallity is not of God's creation. Just like lying, murder, cheating, greed, lust, envy, and a host of other sins that are not God's creation.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 @ 7:58pm
Well, last I checked, god did make Jesus...in some way or another. And in the Gospel of John the Apostle John is often referred to as the disciple whom Jesus loved most. The Greek word for love--and there are many--that is used is one specifically used for homosexual love. So perhaps Jesus was queerer than a 3 dollar bill and for about half the Christian culture it's all some homoerotic festival.
Posted by onthehelm at 05/15/2008 @ 8:11pm
Obie can not afford to lose any more of the middle than he already has......
Posted by JOMAMMA
middle?
what middle?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2008 @ 8:18pm
Posted by Cccomfo1
That's funny .. I thought your God made everything .. including gays, and murderers, and rapists, and GWB, and greed CEOs, and all the rest. Or is it just the rainbows and the puppy dogs and fuzzy-wuzzy bunnies that your God made? Or did all the bad stuff sprang up like mold around the damp corner of the bathroom?
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/15/2008 @ 8:21pm
"Well, last I checked, god did make Jesus...in some way or another. And in the Gospel of John the Apostle John is often referred to as the disciple whom Jesus loved most. The Greek word for love--and there are many--that is used is one specifically used for homosexual love. So perhaps Jesus was queerer than a 3 dollar bill and for about half the Christian culture it's all some homoerotic festival."
Posted by onthehelm at 05/15/2008
Actually, the love Jesus had for John is called "Agape" love. Which is a familial love. He loved John like a blood brother. Just like he loved Mary of Magdelene as a sister.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 @ 8:22pm
Wow. While the ranting from the usual cast of characters (MBB mostly) about 'activist judges' etc. isn't surprising at all, the near total lack of comprehension of due process, constitutional law, legal review, etc. being displayed is just...stupefying!!
Stupid laws get passed ALL THE TIME! And history is replete with clear examples, over and over, of these stupid laws being 'struck down' as unconstitutional. The laws don't need to be changed, or ammended, or modified, or...whatever. If a set of judges rules that they are in opposition to the Constitution, they are GONE.
Chicago passes a law prohibiting men from wearing dresses? struck down!
Virginia passes a law prohibiting racially mixed marriages? struck down!
Texas passes a law prohibiting consentual sex deemed "deviant sexual intercourse"? struck down!
This is ABSOLUTELY the way our government was intended to function...and it has been doing so almost from the very beginning of our history!
Jeeze, google Darin...read!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008 @ 8:27pm
"Law can't be based on religious rules."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2008
Uh, when was the last time you read the constitution? The foundling fathers of this country used the last 5 commandments of the Mosaic law as a foundation. Many of the laws today abutt the laws of biblical scripture.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 @ 8:29pm
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/15/2008
Uuhh I don't believe in God. I don't know what you are talking about at all.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2008 @ 8:30pm
THM61, homosexuallity is not of God's creation. Just like lying, murder, cheating, greed, lust, envy, and a host of other sins that are not God's creation.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 | ignore this person
.
And again...WOW! Talk about ignorance on parade!!
'Homosexuality' exists naturally in vitually every animal species that congregates in large social groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008 @ 8:33pm
Posted by Metteyya at 05/15/2008 |
You are completely ignorant of the existing law. Virtually every state in the union appropriates to itself the right to define and regulate "marriage"--so-described--as does relevant federal legislation such as the Defense of Marriage Act.
In California until today, the law said that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. The state offered to same-sex couples only the differently named status of "civil union." The California Supreme Court ruled today that this is inevitably discriminatory because the preferred designation of "marriage" was legally unavailable to same-sex couples. It thus violates the California Constitution.
The decision only overturns the separate-but-equal regime. This leaves open the possibility that the legislature may, if it chooses, move toward what you describe: cede the notion of "marriage" entirely to religion and retain only a single notion of "civil union" that is open to all couples of any gender. But that would be a *change* in the existing law, it is not even remotely accurate as a description of existing law.
Posted by oisin at 05/15/2008 @ 8:33pm
"Let's say I wanted to outlaw allowing churches to exist in the US because my faith said that places of worship were evil. Would you allow it?"
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2008
That scenario has been tried before, remember? The Church of England was persucuting(sp) anyone that didn't worship the king, remember? That's why the Puritans left for a new beginning.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 @ 8:34pm
The foundling fathers of this country used the last 5 commandments of the Mosaic law as a foundation.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 | ignore this person
.
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Please point to the part of the Constitution that prohibits "coveting" thy neighbor's wife.
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008 @ 8:38pm
'Homosexuality' exists naturally in vitually every animal species that congregates in large social groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008
Lil, you can quote Wiki all day long, and you still know nothing.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 @ 8:40pm
The foundling fathers of this country used the last 5 commandments of the Mosaic law as a foundation.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 | ignore this person
.
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Please point to the part of the Constitution that prohibits adultery.
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008 @ 8:41pm
Posted by ACook at 05/15/200
Well wiki uses real sources. However homosexuality is genetic. You are born that way you don't make the choice.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2008 @ 8:48pm
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008
I see so you are advocating making laws based on our prejudice? Well let's outlaw Christianity then!
Send the Christians to another country!
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2008 @ 8:51pm
The term "Mosaic law" refers to MUCH more than the 10 commandments. It actually refers to the Pentateuch or Torah, which is the first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible. Christians usually refer to these as the first 5 books of the Old Testament. Gensis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Leviticus and Deuteronomy are notorious for the rather savage nature of the laws and punishments they describe. So...
Please point to the part of the Constituion that order parents to take their rebellious sons to the town square to be stoned....
...or to the Constituional prohibition against using 'blemished' animals in sacrifices at the Temple.
So
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008 @ 8:51pm
"Well wiki uses real sources. However homosexuality is genetic. You are born that way you don't make the choice."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2008
Wiki, uses what ever someone puts in there. Not always correct.
There are no studies that can conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that people are born homosexual. It, like prejudice, is a learned behavior.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 @ 8:58pm
Lil, you can quote Wiki all day long, and you still know nothing.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 | ignore this person
.
Translation - you've already made up your mind and will allow no mere 'facts' to change it.
Actually Acook, I didn't 'quote' anything...I cited a link that is based on scientific observations from probably thousands of experts on the subject of natural animal behaviour. Try reading. FOllow the links. Open your mind, educate yourself...instead of just the whole 'knee-jerk' thing.
How about National Geographic?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.ht ml
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008 @ 9:05pm
Cambridge?
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521864461
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008 @ 9:08pm
http://www.biologyreference.com/Ar-Bi/Behavior-Genetic-Basis-of.html
http://www.livescience.com/animals/071209-fly-genes.html
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/a_gay_old_time_in_the_animal_kingdom /
OR maybe you prefer a more familiar source like Fox News...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008 @ 9:12pm
"So..
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008
SO!?...Lil, no one's talking about the Mosaic Law as a whole. I'm talking about how our constitutional laws were based on the basic premise of serveral Mosaic commandments. All the other stuff you mentioned is irrelevant.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 @ 9:12pm
How about the medical community...
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008 @ 9:22pm
The foundling fathers of this country used the last 5 commandments of the Mosaic law as a foundation.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 | ignore this person
.
I'm talking about how our constitutional laws were based on the basic premise of serveral Mosaic commandments.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 | ignore this person
.
OK...sure.
NOT Mosaic Law.
And now, NOT the last 5 commandments, either.
Now we're down to "serveral Mosaic commandments."
Gotcha.
So...
Exactly which of those commandments did the founding fathers of this country use as a foundation?...and for what parts of the constitution...exactly?
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008 @ 9:31pm
Translation - you've already made up your mind and will allow no mere 'facts' to change it.
Actually Acook, I didn't 'quote' anything...I cited a link that is based on scientific observations from probably thousands of experts on the subject of natural animal behaviour. Try reading. FOllow the links. Open your mind, educate yourself...instead of just the whole 'knee-jerk' thing.
How about National Geographic?
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008
Facts and scientific observations change everyday, and so I take them with a grain of salt. Nothing is definiative in the realm of nature because change is always constant.
And as far as my mind being opened, try reading some of the crap the scientific community put out when I was a youngster (over 30 years ago) and compare it to today's science crap. You will never get the same answer twice.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 @ 9:33pm
This latest gay marriage debate should prove a timely reminder of what is at stake in the 2008 election, mainly, supreme court appointees who will either interpret the law,(especially those passed by popular referenda) or make new laws by decree, while expressing contempt for the democratic process.
No doubt pro-gay marriage activists will try every tactic to keep the constitutional amendment banning Gay Marriage off the ballot in the fall, while hailing today's decision as a great day for civil rights.
I look forward to the measure being on the ballot, which could give John McCain a fighting chance of carrying California, and perhaps even inspire similar measures in other states.
Lets hear it for the California Supreme Court!
Posted by TransitDave at 05/15/2008 @ 9:46pm
No one....NO ONE can offer a Constitutional reason why a homosexual couple cannot marry, same as a heterosexual couple.
No...not "tradition"...no...not "legal precedence"...no nothing.
NO Constitutional reason. "full faith" clause and the 14th Amendment, Section 1.
If there is one...love to hear it.
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2008 @ 9:49pm
"If there is one...love to hear it."
Posted by Mask at 05/15/2008
Mask, there are somethings you can't give an explanation for. Take the World's Oldest Profession, like the Institution of Marriage, it has been around since the beginning of time. And they'll be here well after you and I are long gone.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008 @ 10:05pm
Your real problem is in calling it a "perversion." That's like calling red hair a perversion--simply being outside the statistical norm doesn't make something perverse.
Yes, Virginia, homosexuality <i>does</i> have biological roots, and yes it <i>does</i> occur in other species besides humans. Please crack a book so you don't pass both your ignorance <i>and</i> your bigotry onto your grandkids.
But to put it in what are perhaps more familiar terms to you, "This is the gay the Lord has made." Why do you hate this aspect of God's creation?
Posted by thm61 at 05/15/2008
I call it a perversion because as a pastor, it is my duty before G-d to call sin what it is. Lack of moral character is not a legal issue, but an ethical and religious issue.
As to it's roots, it is not biological or has any relevance to what animals do. Here is a great example of how evolution in the public education has diminished the reasoning capacity of millions of Americans.
By attempting as you and Lillian and others on the left do to equate us as "just another animal", you ignore reality.
Tell me what species of animals have created great works of art? set up global communications? created great governments and civilizations? sent some of their fellow creatures successfully into space and back home again? created sports, manufacturing, ships and submarines, aircraft, computers?
Tell me, do we walk around and defecate wherever we happen to be when we feel the "need"? Do we just fornicate in front of whomever is around us when we are "in heat"? How many of us ever eat our young?
I don't hate homosexuals anymore than I hate adulterers, liars, petty thieves, any anyone who succumbs to any other sin. As the Bible says, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of G-d". We are all sinners, me included. But when and if we recognize a need to change, we ask G-d to give us the power not to given in to our desires that will only seperate us from Him.
BTW, on cracking a book, I certainly have done so. I have multiple degrees and I did receive an A in biology (and no not from the Seminary I attended. I went to public college first).
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/15/2008 @ 10:30pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/15/2008 | ignore this person
First off, who is this "G-d" that you keep writing about?
And why are you afraid to write his name?
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008 @ 11:34pm
Next up...
If you wish to refer to homosexuality as a 'sin' or 'perverse' or 'unevolved' or whatever else, based on your religious beliefs, that's one thing. But to call it 'unatural' is just a denial of nature....pure and simple.
It's everywhere in nature...no getting around it. And we've seen that it has a scientific basis in 'biology'...not simple morality (choice).
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008 @ 11:40pm
Now let's examine this notion of our evolution. Yes...that's right...evolution. You see, you can claim we're evolved...that we've achieved more than other species, reached higher goals, evolved more intelligence that has enabled us to create space vehicles, computers, sumarines, and such. But that DOESN'T mean we are not animals. We ARE...and there just isn't any way to get around it (unless you close your eyes, stuff your fingers in your ears, and chant...non-stop...lalalalalalalala.
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008 @ 11:46pm
"'Homosexuality' exists naturally in vitually every animal species that congregates in large social groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008 |
I am not sure just because it exists in animals means anything or it is an equivelent...
I do not have any issue with the gay community other than tone down their behavior at their celebratory parades!!..most of the public sees the gay community as "just like me only different"...but if the MSM showed some of the other side of the gay communitys,...anyway. I digress..
Is it normal for gayness to occur in the human condition..yes... is it natural in the over all design of the male/female in the biological necessity of procreation..no...in that sense it may be an aberation of nature..on a human level gayness shouldn't and doesn't matter..people are born who they are as far as I can understand and should be left alone over things they can not change..laws should be made in the legislature and if all things are true, the legislation should folow the general publics wishes for their laws in their states..for a court after 100+ years of consistancy suddenly 4 members decide THEY do not like that past is inappropiate..they should have defered to the other body of govt, especialy after the Governor bailed out on a leqadership opportunity..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/15/2008 @ 11:56pm
Now let's examine this notion of our behaviour as compared to other animals.
Yes, some things, like eating our young, are immoral. But what of the other behaviours? No, we don't(usually) defecate wherever we want...or fornicate with our spouses wherever we like. Of course, that DOESN'T mean those things are 'sins' now does it. Some behaviours are restricted by social norms...that have nothing whatsoever to do with morality or 'sinfullness'. Of course, that certainly hasn't prevented self-professed 'men of God' (ooo...look...I wrote the word 'God') from trying to make ALL KINDS of behaviours out as 'sinful'. In fact, there was a time when the very persuit of science was considered to be a 'sin'.
Posted by Lillian at 05/15/2008 @ 11:56pm
The issue does open up an opportunity for a chance for the candidates to state their positions openly...I believe it is a state issue..so it might be an interesting topic.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/15/2008 @ 11:57pm
middle?
what middle?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2008 |
The entire middle..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/15/2008 @ 11:58pm
And, since we're here anyway...let's take a look at some of the other comparisons with animals...
"Tell me what species of animals have created great works of art?"
Have youy ever looked at a spider web? I mean REALLY examined it? Or a bee hive? Just today, I was examining a very intricate nest made by a Hooded Oriole...interwoven with, and suspended under, the frond of a giant Bird of Paradise. Absolutely amazing!!
"set up global communications?"
Ever investigated the songs of whales? The songs of blue whales have been shown to use an ultra-low frequency that WE have detected over 1,000 miles away. Whe are just beginning to understand that whales (and other cetacea) have an inbuilt sonar capability that is many, many times more powerful (and sensitive) than anything we have ever imagined. If we can hear than 1,000 miles off, at what distance can THEY hear each other?
"created great governments"
Wait...governments? Now you're saying governments are great?!?!?
"and civilizations?"
Define 'civilizations'.
"created sports"
Ever seen dolphins make up games, sometimes using props like coral or even fish? I have.
"manufacturing, ships and submarines, aircraft, computers? "
Ever seen some of the termite mounds in Australia and Africa? Leaf cutter ants who literally 'cultivate' and 'harvest' fungi on prepared 'farms'?
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 12:13am
Oh yes, we're pretty evolved...smart...acomplished.
We've also been known to kill each other for sport.
Raped for reasons that have nothing whatsover to do with procreation.
Destroyed entire civilizations because they have a differnt notion of 'God'.
Created and pursued material 'things' that have nothing whatsoever to do with survival or need...then steal from each other...even kill each over...over possion of them.
Are we evolved 'higher' than other animals? Sure.
Are we at the top? Not a chance.
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 12:23am
"Tell me what species of animals have created great works of art?"
ever heard the song of the cenzontle? they called charlie parker "bird", after all. most of us are like tawdry bowerbirds.
"set up global communications?"
maybe other animals actually listen to each other.
"created great governments"
ants.
"and civilizations?"
ants.
"created sports"
arena football.
"manufacturing, ships and submarines, aircraft, computers? "
a bird can fly. top that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 12:27am
people are born who they are as far as I can understand and should be left alone over things they can not change
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/15/2008 | ignore this person
Careful there John...you're starting to sound darn right 'tolerant'. :-)
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 12:29am
And why are you afraid to write his name?
Posted by Lillian
i say we call god "clifford" from now on.
i'm tired of people telling me god, uh, clifford, wants to squish me.
if cliff's so smart, why are we so dumb?
if cliff's so smart and loves us so, why does he write so many books that tell us to smite the people who read his other books.
wtf, cliff?
BTW thanks, cliff, for raspberries and stars and tree frogs and cenzontles (miss you guys!) and crows and dandelions and flying squirrels and skinks and purslane.
cliff, you rule!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 12:38am
and if two people love each other,
wtf?
so what.
i say we call all unions of foreverlove between people
foreverlovebondingmoments.
yeah, foreverlovebondingmoment.
stupid humans. i wish i spoke starling.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 12:42am
laws should be made in the legislature and if all things are true, the legislation should folow the general publics wishes for their laws in their states..for a court after 100+ years of consistancy suddenly 4 members decide THEY do not like that past is inappropiate..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/15/2008 | ignore this person
.
And this is where we disagree.
In the Federalist Papars, a concept is presented (although not called such) that came to be commonly kown as 'the tyrany of the majority'. Basically, it means that a majority can agree to and create decisions that come to inflict injustice on a minority that equals or surpasses the injustice done by a tyrant or despot.
That's pretty much why we have a Bill of Rights. Even if the 'majority' thinks it's OK to violate my rights...
...it's STILL not OK!
That's also why our founding fathers created a tri-cameral government...with a court system that has the power to 'strike down' laws that the 'majority' might agree upon, but are in opposition to the rights that are guaranteed to me by the Constitution of the United States.
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 12:42am
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 | ignore this person
I seem to recall a series of children's books about a giant red dog named Clifford.
Wait...
...god
...spelled backwards is...
dog!!!
Frosty...you may be on to something big! (and red?)
Oh my clifford!
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 12:48am
cenzontles? - mockingbirds?
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 12:49am
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008
So, if we follow that logic, then the court should have voided all marraiges between all heterosexuals since the law, at its inseption, was unconstitutional?
'Splain that one to all the married men...and then throw out all the divorce settlements..property splits, since all marraiages performed up to the last ruling are,voided by bad law, unconstitutional and therefore, do not exist!!
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/16/2008 @ 12:53am
Hooded Oriole
ooh,
lots of those in cancϊn.
i once found a monarch butterfly in xalapa, veracruz.
it was dead and lost.
there have been GENERATIONS of yellow-bellied sapsuckers that visit the same white birch tree in my sister's backyard every spring.
but i suppose because they don't show up in a hummer they are stupid.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 12:54am
cenzontles? - mockingbirds?
Posted by Lillian
amo el canto del cenzontle, pαjaro de cuatrocientas voces;
amo el color del jade y el enervante perfume de las flores;
pero amo mαs a mi hermano el hombre.
-- nezahualcoyotl
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 12:57am
cenzontle in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v24QDA5y8MQ&fmt=18
that one sings "pop goes the weasel" at 0:44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d-QZpnFKb8&feature=related&fmt=18
this one sends you a kiss at 1:41
anyhoo, there are an abundance of cenzontles in cancϊn, and i find that if i answered there "song" in a modified jazzlike fashion,
they would answer back,
trading fours like the great beboppers.
a pair even became my friends, following my home on my walk from work and even waiting for me on the telephone line outside my apartment window.
Friday, May 16, 2008 1:20:41 AM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 01:14am
So, if we follow that logic, then the court should have voided all marraiges between all heterosexuals since the law, at its inseption, was unconstitutional?
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/16/2008 | ignore this person
Wow John...that's a stretch...even for you.
What 'logic' did you follow to come up with that doosie?
The law excluded recognition of same-sex marriages. (Unconstituionally, as it turns out.)
The law didn't exclude, or include, or say anything at all about heterosexual marriages, so striking it down as unconstitutional has zero effect on them.
Wow, I actually had to explain that to you?
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 01:45am
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 | ignore this person
Bird of 400 voices...I like that. :-)
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 02:01am
I believe it is a state issue..
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/15/2008 | ignore this person
Actually, this WAS a state case....decided by a state court and considering the state law and state constitution. So if that's your logic, it's a done deal.
However, ultimately, federal law, and Supreme Court review, trumps all.
Google Marbury vs Madison
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 02:17am
Marriages performed by the state are not a religious institutions.
That's why it is called "civil marriage."
The attempt to create another stratum called "civil unions" for gays was fundamentally redundant, because this existed in the form of "civil marriage" and simply represented the denial of certain practical advantages and protections to gays.
I was married civilly and never in a synagogue. Creating another layer of civil union for gays was an institutionalized form of discrimination.
Of course, none of this dictates that any church must perform same-sex marriages. Unpleasant though I find many such doctrines, it would be a mistake today for the state to dictate that churches perform gay or lesbian marriage if their members or governors reject this on religious grounds. That will have to be fought out church by church, as is taking place.
I suspect, however, that many people are conned into thinking same-sex church marriages will be dictated by legal protection for gay civil marriage. That cannot and will not be possible under current constitutional law -- the near-universal mainstream interpretation of the first amendment as barring the state from dictating church doctrines, just as the churches cannot dictate state laws.
A lot of our elections have been guided by fantasies. Like Obama is a Muslim -- seems to be a big one this year. A cover for racism and religious discrimination but also -- simply untrue!
So supporters of gay rights should be careful to present the legal situation they are advocating vis a vis the state accurately.
People are starting to calm down about these lie campaigns and they should be encouraged to do so. F
Posted by ffeldman at 05/16/2008 @ 02:27am
how about an executive branch that completely ignores it?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 09:23am
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/16/2008
Sorry, Darin....you can't prove your case.
Unless you can figure out a way to make gays and lesbians "non-citizens"...QUOTE-
14th Amendment to US Constitution, Sect. 1-
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Posted by Mask at 05/16/2008 @ 09:25am
WRONG! When four judges can redefine what the Constituion means on a whim, the Constitutions doesn't mean a fucking thing.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/16/2008 | ignore this person
This is getting to be a pretty bizzare fantasy of your Darin.
Now YOU need to google Marbury V Madison.
The notion of judicial review has existed since the Magna Carta. It doesn't exist so that judges can act on a whim...it exist so that people like you can't redefine the Constitution...
...on a whim.
(I mean seariously, who exactly is being 'protected' by a law banning same-sex 'marriages'?)
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 09:48am
John actually get's it right.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/16/2008 | ignore this person
And no, actually John got it completely wrong...and you are exposing your complete ignorance of the law.
The law DIDN'T 'authorize' marriage as you (and John) claim. That's patently ridiculous.
The law in question tried to restrict an existing right, marriage, to one single concept, 'between a man and woman'. That restriction on the concept of marriage is what has now been struck down...not the concept of marriage itself.
But you know, there are all kinds of really dense people around (finger resting on the side of my nose) and they 'sue' for retarded stuff all the time...so that may happen.
Of course, such people get laughed out of court all the time too.
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 09:58am
which could give John McCain a fighting chance of carrying California,
hahahahahaha. whattaretard
Posted by emile duBois at 05/16/2008 @ 10:01am
Oh, the proof that the state's interest in marriage is procreation stems from the fact that blood relatives can't marry.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/16/2008 | ignore this person
.
OK now it's just getting wierd.
Darin, you are stretching beyond reason here. You are trying to link the right to get married to the act of procreation. Do you know how many older people, who are past child-bearing age, get married? Do you kow how many married couples either choose not to have kids, or who can't have them.
The logical extension of the arguement you are trying to make here is that THEY should be prohibited from marrying. You REALLY don't want to go there...
...do you?
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 10:07am
"Sorry Mom. The widower Bob seems like a nice older gent and all. But see, the marriage laws of the state are based on the notion of procreation. Unless he can knock you up...no wedding bells for you!"
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 10:18am
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/16/2008
"state's interest"...."procreation"
I'm sorry....WHERE are those in the Constitution and where do they supercede the 14th Amendment, Section One, counselor?
Posted by Mask at 05/16/2008 @ 10:54am
BTW, next up on Darin's repetoire will likely be "tradition" and "100s of years of legal precedent"....neither of which are ALSO in the US Constitution.
Posted by Mask at 05/16/2008 @ 10:55am
The sanctity - holiness - of marriage was destroyed when money became tied to it. Dowries, tax advantages, shared employee benefits - i.e. health insurance - all added to the downfall of a holy institution. Even allowing a judge to perform a marriage ceremony sullies the institution.
If you want to return marriage to being a blessed event, get rid of tax advantages, judges performing ceremonies, the ability to sign on to your spouses health insurance. Go to doing what some homosexuals have been doing for years - getting married by clergymen with no potential for financial gain.
It is sad what marriage has become - prenups, divorce settlements, constitutional amendments. Ugh. What about love? What about life long commitment?
Yes, there will always be some other reasons involved with getting married other than love and commitment. A gold digger will find a way to spend all the money and a physical attraction might fade over time. Still, it's the financial and legal aspects of marriage that seem to legitimize it as an unholy event.
Posted by bubbadog at 05/16/2008 @ 11:29am
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008
How about talking TO someone who is homosexual Acook. I know quite a few. Every one of them said from the time they were young they were never attracted to the opposite sex. Sure some of them tried things with the opposite sex to see but it never brought them happiness. They only got happiness when they were with the same sex. That was from the START of puberty. They didn't have time to gain a LEARNED action because they were homosexual from the beginning of their sexual lives.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2008 @ 11:29am
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008
Besides you are willing to deny science as needing to be taken with a grain of salt. Then you will quote Biblical law to me as if it's fact. When you can't even tell me for sure if the Bible was written through the hand of God without quoting the Bible as the source. You only have one source whereas I can quote many different sources. You take science as unsure but put all your chips in the Bible basket. It's why I hate religion. It allows people to justify their prejudice in their own mind. So they can deny someone their right to happiness and not feel bad about it. Then a Christian will come out screaming about prejudices against the Christian religion. Saying that not allowing religion in school is prejudice but then they will take away a gay persons right to happiness. Bunch of hypocrites if you ask me.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2008 @ 11:34am
Lillian, If I'm irraltional any you've got it all figured out, why isn't the prohibition of siblings marrying unconstitutional?
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/16/2008 | ignore this person
.
Actually, this is an interesting subject that has been considerably examined.
Cultures throughout history have been all over the map on this one. Check out the Greeks, Romans, etc. In ancient Egypy, something like 20% of all marriages were between siblings.
Several countries have eliminated laws agains 'incest' and at least one I know of, Sweden, allows sibling marriage.
In the bible, check out Genesis. No problem for Lot to have children with his daughters (apparently the same thing for Adam and Eve, Noah, etc.) But by Leviticus, it becomes taboo.
And that seems to be the most obvious answer for you Darin. The marriage laws are rarely challenged because the social taboo is quite strong.
Now here's a question for you Darin. If a brother and sister furnish proof of infertility, why CAN'T they get married?
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 11:38am
If we are going to discuss inbreeding as part of this then we should entertain the biological realities of it. Inbreeding runs both ways (as any farmer or dog/cat breeder knows.) That is bad genes can become amplified, but so can good ones. It is very much a "double or nothin" genetic scenario. Try a little reading:
http://www.messybeast.com/inbreed.htm
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/16/2008 @ 11:45am
See...incest laws and prohibitions on marrying relatives exist in every state in the US. BUT, in at least 5 states in the US, you CAN marry your cousin...if you are over child-bearing age or furnish proof that you are infertile.
So, if that's OK in the case of your cousin, why not siblings?
(I would presume that, if this 'logic' hold water, homosexual couples would not have to furnish proof that their marriage wouldn't result in children?)
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 11:49am
Again, other guys (as well as MBB)...
you're getting drawn off the main thing....i.e. the U.S. Constitution.
Why do you think McCain is opposing a Constitutional Amendment banning "gay marriage", while claiming he opposes it?
Because he wants it both ways, without actually supporting the ONE THING that would prevent it.
Homosexual American citizens...are citizens. Therefore, by the 14th Amendment, Sect. 1., entitled to the SAME RIGHTS as heterosexual citizens, which would include access to the CIVIL (not religious) right to obtain a legal marriage.
Everything else is just cotton candy in the rain arguments like "tradition" or "legal history" or worse "the Bible"...none of which applies to civil rights.
Posted by Mask at 05/16/2008 @ 12:10pm
MBB,
You do remember your civics class right....three equal branches of government....the way you seem to be coming across in that you feel that the judicial branch should always be subservient to the Congress would make me start thinking you are an America hater. Say it can't be so!
And before you come back....since you define judicial "activism" as over ruling the elected branches laws then you might want to google good old Clarence Thomas as his (often in the minority of the USC) voting record places him as the most "activist" of all the justices on that court!
Posted by anarchist at 05/16/2008 @ 12:28pm
The CA ruling will not create a major issue for the GOP in the national campaign. The bigots for whom the private lives of gay adults are a matter of concern won't be voting for Obama anyway. The issues that will sink the GOP are the tanked GOP economy, the disastrous GOP war, and universal health care.
A person of color in the White House, not as doorman, but as president, that's it. Better get used to it, bigots.
Posted by sloper at 05/16/2008 @ 12:42pm
The mind of the religious is amazing to me. They will deny science as nothing of importance and not based on anything solid. Even though is based on observation and years of gathering data. Then they will quote a book, that has confused things like epilepsy as being possessed by demons, as fact.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2008 @ 12:42pm
As open-minded as you are, Lillian, I am surprised that you can't see this Lillian, why do they have to provide proof that their infertile? That prohibition's basic eugenics, right there. If you think about it much, there is no reasonable ban on inbreeding. It's just that the overwhelming majority of the population (me included) find it icky, and a poor survival choice.
Posted by brantl at 05/16/2008 @ 12:43pm
As open-minded as you are, Lillian, I am surprised that you can't see this Lillian, why do they have to provide proof that their infertile? That prohibition's basic eugenics, right there. If you think about it much, there is no reasonable ban on inbreeding. It's just that the overwhelming majority of the population (me included) find it icky, and a poor survival choice.
Posted by brantl at 05/16/2008 @ 12:47pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/16/2008
yeah but Cars, Guns and Alcohol in the hands on inexperienced people can kill others. So those are not very good examples.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2008 @ 12:48pm
Posted by brantl at 05/16/2008
We shouldn't be breeding anymore anyways. 6 billion people is enough. We don't need anymore.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2008 @ 12:53pm
Mask, there are somethings you can't give an explanation for.
Posted by ACook at 05/15/2008
That may be true, but it certainly makes for a very weak argument!
Posted by Hman23 at 05/16/2008 @ 12:55pm
ACook: if you don't approve of same-sex marriages, don't enter one.
Posted by FrlessFreep at 05/16/2008 @ 12:56pm
MBB,
No they interpreted the California Constitution such that they felt that a law banning a segment of the population their California Constitutioal right was not acceptable.
You don't like their interpretation which basically means you either don't like the Cali constitution (and if you live there and are in the majority you are well within your rights to change that constitution) or you don't like that the court has the responsibilty to say "hey this law you passed isn't constitutional" - meaning you don't want a third branch.
Posted by anarchist at 05/16/2008 @ 1:04pm
If 1-year olds are citizens, why can't they have a license to drive?
Even though the 2nd amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms, the state still has an interest in licensing firearms.
Alclhol is a leagal product, but you need a specific liquor license to sell it.
So the state issues license to people where it has an interest in the licensed activity.
What is that interest for marriage?
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/16/2008
MBB - you need to read up on the 14th Amendment and the analysis required to evaluate laws that may fall under it. This will answer all of your hypotheticals.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/16/2008 @ 1:04pm
>>>But the Judges usurped the legislature's duties and wrote a new marriage law.
That is activist.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/16/2008<<<
MBB,
You obviously haven't studied the history of this issue. The California legislature DID act and the governor vetoed because HE thought the courts should be making the determination of whether gay marriage was consistent with the California constitution!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/16/2008 @ 1:05pm
MBB -
Here is a boiled down version for you:
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Equal_protection
Posted by Hman23 at 05/16/2008 @ 1:05pm
I haven't been able to figure out how civil unions and marriage are supposed to be two different things since the end result is the same.Apparently we are supposed to pretend that marriage has something to do with religion and civil unions don't,but that makes no sense considering the fact that straight couples are considered to be married even if both are atheists and got married by virtue of a civil ceremony.In the Bible marriage has nothing to do with religion.In the OT women were considered to be a mans property and marriage simply transfered ownership of the woman from one man to another and the men who wrote the rules in the OT made it so they could get around anti adultery rules by allowing themselves to marry more than one woman or quickly and easily dumping one woman for another.In the NT Paul said you should not get married and have kids which was an odd thing for someone trying to create a new religion to say.He said that the only reason that people should get married is if they can't control their lust which makes marriage something you do in order to get sex and not something you do for religious reasons.Of course,those who get civil unioned will refer to themselves as married as will most everyone else making the two terms the same over time.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/16/2008 @ 1:07pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/16/2008
MBB, none of your "analogies" hold up.
Nobody is talking about children marrying....but adults. Ditto alcohol.
And any citizen who qualifies can obtain a weapons license.
The ONLY "disqualifier" that is offered is that the person is the "wrong gender" for marrying the OTHER gender. And that's un-Constitutional, because there is NO Constitutional prohibition on people of the same gender marrying.
An "oversight" if you will from that Neo-Classical Era....but one there (or not there) just the same.
Now, it'd be different if it was like VOTING...where they needed Constitutional Amendment to expand the right to 18 year olds, women, non-property owners, etc.
But there is NOTHING in the Constitution (THE law of the land) that can allow a citizen being denied similar rights to another citizen for purposes of a legal contract...based on them being "the wrong sex" for that contract.
Again, why do you think McCain opposes a "gay marriage ban Amendment"?
Because he knows that's the ONLY way to ban it...and he wants the door left open to say "Wasn't me, Religious Righties. It was those dang courts that did it! And an Amendment will be too hard to pass".
Then he gets to go to the Moderates and Independents and say "I did NOTHING to try to deny gay rights....I oppose a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage!"
Posted by Mask at 05/16/2008 @ 1:09pm
ACOOK
I'm talking about how our constitutional laws were based on the basic premise of serveral Mosaic commandments. All the other stuff you mentioned is irrelevant.
And which commandments were responsible for the separation of powers, the prohibition of ex post facto laws or bills of attainder, the Electoral College, the rule that only the House could initiate revenue bills, etc.?
MBB
The idea that marriage is about procreation primarily is nonsense. It can be about property arrangements, two people spending a life together, etc. I defy you to name one state that has ever instituted a fertility test as part of the process for getting a marriage license.
Incidentally, please tell me how 172 pages of judicial opinion can constitute a whim.
Posted by Jefferson_Locke at 05/16/2008 @ 1:09pm
We shouldn't be breeding anymore anyways. 6 billion people is enough. We don't need anymore.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2008
You'd fit in well then will the rulers in China.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008 @ 1:10pm
I have posted this on many occasions but marriage is a religious sacrament by it's very definition. It was brought to this country by those who followed the Judeo-Christian traditions of this sacrament. In fact, for many decades, most states had little if anything to do with it because it is a religious sacrament. When states began calling these legal contracts marriages, it was for the simple fact that they represented what nearly all of the US population practiced; making a legal record of a religious sacrament. You would be hard pressed to find anyone at that time arguing for separation of Church and State over this. What is also amusing is that in many places, religious organizations are granted the authority by a state to issue marriage licenses which are then recorded with a county records office after their ceremony.
Given that civil union contracts are actually what all marriages are when licensed by a state, the only reason for homosexuals to be making this demand is that they want the religious element to be forced to recognize them as somehow being the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with legal rights. Those are fully granted in a civil union.
The word marriage should be stricken from the legal language of these contracts. If couples want to get married, they should then seek out the faith based institutions where they can take part in the sacrament of marriage according to that faith's doctrines.
This is a war against traditional religious institutions, plain and simple.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008 @ 1:23pm
"Then four judges said, "Fuck you public! We're going to substitute our values for your laws.""
it's abundantly clear that this person has no idea how California law works.
first of all, judges are, at first, appointed (and in this case, 6 of the 7 judges were appointed by Repubicans), and they they are approved later by the voters. all justices were overwhelmingly approved by the voters of california.
second, justices do not issue "fuck yous" to the public. they deliberate the relevant precedents, and then issue an interpretation w/ a decision. their decision was not motivated by any preference for a particular OUTCOME, and this is what so many conservatives fail to understand.
finally, the only "values" these judges possess are relevant considerations of california law. i mean, for godssakes, read what they said for yourself:
"[O]ur task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, but instead only to determine whether the difference in official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution."
does it seem like they are "substituting" values?
i just knew that the marybretbards of the world would join the chorus of retarded neoconservatives on this issue.....
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 @ 1:23pm
"This is a war against traditional religious institutions, plain and simple."
how can any reasonable person respond to this?
or what about this?
"But the Judges usurped the legislature's duties and wrote a new marriage law."
again, how does a reasonable person respond to someone who has NO IDEA HOW CALIFORNIA LAW WORKS?
mary, you should stop talking immediately, because you are making yourself look incredibly stupid....
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 @ 1:27pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/16/2008
In California, and I suspect most states, they give you a "choice" between a "civil" union with or without a civil ceremony, or a marriage certified by a religious leader.
Legally, they are the same.
The problem is when you have the state trying to dictate religious views and customs to religions concerning what "marriage" is or is not, as the state has no "religious" authority.
Can you imagine a Mormon priest being "forced" by the state to marry two "gay" Mormons when this is forbidden in their religion? If you allow this, then there is no limit to state involvement in religion, in which religious views cease to exit and only state views remain.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/16/2008 @ 1:28pm
Why do you think McCain is opposing a Constitutional Amendment banning "gay marriage", while claiming he opposes it? Because he wants it both ways, without actually supporting the ONE THING that would prevent it.
Posted by Mask at 05/16/2008
Mask, you have it wrong. McCain has stated that he believes that it is a states issue according to the 10th amendment. As a full supporter of the 10th amendment, I would normally agree with that approach. However, given the full faith and credit understanding of the constitution, each state would have to recognize a homosexual marriage contract that was ratified by state.
Therefore and reluctantly, that is why a constitutional amendment is necessary.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008 @ 1:29pm
mary, please read:
The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their "marriage" laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed "it is up to the state Supreme Court" to decide the issue.
now that court has issued a decision, which schwarzanegger has sworn to uphold, if the november proposal passes to add an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage......then the governor has said he will veto it.
and there we have the evidence of marybretbard's prodound ignorance of california law.
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 @ 1:30pm
whether the State should involve itself in religious ceremony is IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.
can't anyone understand this?
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 @ 1:32pm
Posted by Metteyya at 05/16/2008
This appears to be another first on the Nation website; Metteyya and I in agreement.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008 @ 1:33pm
The fourteenth amendment was ratified in 1968. How come nobody noticed that the marriage laws in every state (all 50 of them) in the union were unconstitutional for 140 years?
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/16/2008
Sorry. You are off by 100 years. July 9, 1868.
And earlier you posted that the CA law banning gay marriage was over 100 years old. Can you cite that to me? The only info I found was Prop 22 - passed in 2000.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/16/2008 @ 1:33pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008
Actually no it wasn't Native Americans had commitment ceremonies. So do many groups. It is not just Judeo-Christian and this isn't marriage it is civil union. If you contend that marriage is a religous thing only then you also have to take away all tax advantages.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2008 @ 1:34pm
metteya and liberty's discussion, although interesting, is totally irrelevant to the court's decision.....
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 @ 1:35pm
Prior to 1977, California Civil Code section 4100 (predecessor to what is now codified at California Family Code section 300) defined marriage as: "a personal relation arising out of a civil context, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary."
Posted by Hman23 at 05/16/2008 @ 1:35pm
"That was from the START of puberty. They didn't have time to gain a LEARNED action because they were homosexual from the beginning of their sexual lives."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2008
C3, you don't start learning at puberty. From an early age children are taught a variety of things. They see, mimic and interact with the adults closest to them in their world. It is how all children learn. Many interactions children have with adults are very positive. And then there are those children who's innocence have been taken away becuase of the wrong interaction with adults.
I believe a person's emotional and psychological well-being rely more on nurture, than on nature.
Posted by ACook at 05/16/2008 @ 1:36pm
"But notice that that was a law passed by legislators, not judges. These fucking arrogant judges who believe that their constituants are just too ignorant to figure it out on their own and have to have the judges' values rammed down their throats."
i haven't read anything as painfully stupid as this in many, many months.....
mary, with all due respect, read the court's decision prior to making such statements....
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 @ 1:40pm
Nope, DARLA.
MBB doesn't want to read the decision, does not want to read the legislative history, does not want to read the 14th Amendment, does not want to read any abstract of the many cases LIL cited.
It would make most of his arguments impossible to assert.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/16/2008 @ 1:42pm
ACook: if you don't approve of same-sex marriages, don't enter one.
Posted by FrlessFreep at 05/16/2008
FF, I've been married to the same man for nearly 25 years (got an anniversary coming up in December). We have 3 beautiful sons. My oldest graduated from college and is in the Marine Corp. My middle one will be graduating next spring and my baby boy will be a senior in highschool this fall.
What you got?
Posted by ACook at 05/16/2008 @ 1:42pm
for some reason, mary believes that the judges should have issued a different decision, other than the one the issued yesterday, because that would have proved that they were not arrogant, or not subverting the will of the people, or not presuming that their "constituents" are ignorant?
can anyone else here understand this? it is painfull obvious that:
a) mary doesn't understand california law
b) mary wishes the judges had not issued this decision
and
c) mary is more interested in the OUTCOME (gays can marry), than how the judges deliberated the issue.
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 @ 1:43pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008
I just happen to believe that religious freedom and non-discrimination against homosexuals can co-exist.
If I don't like a particular religious interpretation or spiritual understanding, I don't have to be part of that religion. The state does not have a right to say "Metteyya's religious interpretation and understanding" should be followed by all religions, nor should religions interfere with the state's obligation to not discriminate among its citizens with respect to "state" rights or obligations.
Let religions determine their own religious views, and let states apply their laws equally to all of their citizens.
You really can do both!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/16/2008 @ 1:46pm
metteyya, while i totally agree with your most recent argument, it has nothing to do with the court's decision yesterday.
both you and liberty are extrapolating too much.
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 @ 1:48pm
ibbleblibble, well i'm not the marrying type, but i am delighted with the court's decision. and i know many people who were equally delighted, some of whom will most certainly get married asap.
and, there was an enormous celebration in my neighborhood last night....they blocked off castro street, set up a huge soundsystem (bad music, though), and there were people everywhere......it was also the hottest day of the year in san francisco. so, people were def in a partying mood last night.
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 @ 2:01pm
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008
It is relevant here because John Nichols indicated in this article that civil unions were really a "weak" position where one is trying to "not be too sympathetic to gays and lesbians".
I disagree with this characterization of those who support civil unions because "civil" unions forces one to focus on the" legal" nature of the relationship between two people whereas "marriage" forces one to focus on the "religious" nature of that relationship.
I don't think these two kinds of relationships should be confused, and the state should only be interested in the legal nature of that relationship.
In other words, a civil union can also be a marriage, but a civil union can also be "just" a civil union without any religious implications at all.
When you start calling "all" civil unions marriages, then you are forcing a religious view on that relationship on those who may not want that at all.
If gays and lesbians want their civil unions blessed by a particular religion, they should be lobbying that religion for acceptance, not government.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/16/2008 @ 2:01pm
We have 3 beautiful sons. My oldest graduated from college and is in the Marine Corp. My middle one will be graduating next spring and my baby boy will be a senior in highschool this fall.
What you got?
Posted by ACook at 05/16/2008
I've got two young kids. And if any of them are gay, I will be A-OK and hope they will be allowed by some state government to marry someday, if they wish.
Wonder how you would respond as it relates to your three boys?
Posted by Hman23 at 05/16/2008 @ 2:01pm
"whereas "marriage" forces one to focus on the "religious" nature of that relationship."
this, again, is irrelevant to the discussion, and nichols is correct, insofar as the law exists at this moment in time.
here is what the judges said (read carefully):
"[O]ur task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, but instead only to determine whether the difference in official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution."
that is all that matters at this point. if you wanna talk about some future court case, be my guest.
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 @ 2:05pm
"If gays and lesbians want their civil unions blessed by a particular religion, they should be lobbying that religion for acceptance, not government."
oh, man!! how does one respond to this??????
so, we didn't have equal rights just 2 days ago.....so we should have gone to the Church, rather than the State?!
even, though, as we all now know......it will be officially LEGAL for gays to marry in about 30 days.
and, metteya says we should have taken a different path?????
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 @ 2:07pm
Actually no it wasn't Native Americans had commitment ceremonies. So do many groups. It is not just Judeo-Christian and this isn't marriage it is civil union. If you contend that marriage is a religous thing only then you also have to take away all tax advantages.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2008
Your point shows a lack of understanding of the word and the sacrament.
Native Americans did not use the word marriage. It is a word that comes from the Bible and speaks to the religious sacramental ceremony of marriage. It is considered to be one of the common sacraments celebrated by Catholics and Protestants alike, along with Baptism and Communion.
And yes, Jesus did clearly say that marriage is between a man and a woman (as noted in Matthew 19 and Mark 10)
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008 @ 2:10pm
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008
In California, "domestic partnerships" have a somewhat less legal status than a civil union, and that is why there was a lawsuit. But to put a domestic partnership on the same level as a marriage goes too far, as all the court would have to do is give domestic partnerships the same legal status as a civil union.
I'll admit, I have yet to study the court's language in detail, but there should be a bright line between marriage and civil unions, but NO difference in legal status with respect to the state. Maybe this is what they said, but the press seems to suggest that "marriage" with a full religious ceremony is now possible with homosexuals. As stated previously, such a religious ceremony is up to that religion, and I don't think a state can "force" a religious leader to perform such a ceremony.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/16/2008 @ 2:15pm
LVL,
And that is the rub! If society (and hence law) hadn't been so thoroughly infiltrated by religion then the Judeo Christian term of marriage wouldn't have evolved into the term we give to a legal union of two people that get to have automated will descendancy, tax breaks and shared healthcare.
But now that is has......you'll have to think of a word other than married for your ceremony
Posted by anarchist at 05/16/2008 @ 2:15pm
How about talking TO someone who is homosexual Acook. I know quite a few. Every one of them said from the time they were young they were never attracted to the opposite sex. Sure some of them tried things with the opposite sex to see but it never brought them happiness. They only got happiness when they were with the same sex. That was from the START of puberty. They didn't have time to gain a LEARNED action because they were homosexual from the beginning of their sexual lives.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2008
Homosexuality like most deviant behaviors primarily operates from a lack of moral discipline. It is either the willingness or the lack of moral fortitude in most cases to avoid engaging in immoral behavior. Just the way that a thief knows that stealing is wrong but gives in to their impulses.
The other factor is demonic influence and even demonic possession. This is less likely but is a consideration and is manifested I think in some of the more outrageous behavior seen in the homosexual parades and the bath houses citing 2 examples.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008 @ 2:19pm
Liberty -
The fact that ignore the actual Constitution (because like MASK wrote, you cannot explain how the 14th and the Full Faith and Credit Clause would allow a ban), and instead only seem to be able to rely upon 2000 year-old hearsay (the hearsay being another 100 years or so old) speaks volumes about your argument.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/16/2008 @ 2:22pm
But now that is has......you'll have to think of a word other than married for your ceremony
Posted by anarchist at 05/16/2008
So, you don't want religion to impose on government but you want government to impose on religion. And how is that constitutional?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008 @ 2:22pm