Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
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.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 | ignore this person
well, congrats to you, DARLA. don't know what your personal situation is (and not asking) but i'm sure this is a sweet little victory for you.
have you celebrated yet?
;)
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/16/2008 @ 1:50pm
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
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
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
"Homosexuality like most deviant behaviors primarily operates from a lack of moral discipline."
this sounds like language from a 1950s sex educational video....
and metteya,
you are taking it too far. again, here is more of the court's ruling:
"affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of of opposite-sex couples, [. . . and] assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same sex couples . . . poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect."
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 @ 2:25pm
Posted by ACook at 05/16/2008
One of my friends comes from a normal every day family. Yet she's gay. She comes from a family a lot like mine actually. Yet she is lesbian and I am straight. It's not as simple as people like you make it out to be.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2008 @ 2:30pm
And what hearsay did I cite?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008
The Bible.
And sorry, I missed one word in my previous post. Add "you" as the fourth word and it should make perfect sense.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/16/2008 @ 2:31pm
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 |
Hmm some religions promote cannibalism. Wouldn't it be considered unconstitutional to illegalize it if that is your argument?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2008 @ 2:31pm
>>>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 <<<
I DEFINITELY DISAGREE with you on this!
CCCOMF01 has it right - homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality. There is no choice in most instances, and THAT is why there should be no discrimination against them by the state.
If a religion wants to discriminate against homosexuals based on some religious interpretation by their leaders, they are free to do so, but that does not give a religion the same right as a public institution that represents ALL people.
I personally think that most religious interpretations that consider homosexuality immoral are based on antiquated notions about human behavior and genetics. The science is pretty clear now, and they have even isolated so-called "gay genes" that predict homosexuality.
But just like the Amish and Mennonites are free to ride around in a horse and buggy, antiquated religions are free to practice their backward religion as long as they don't FORCE it on everyone else through the state.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/16/2008 @ 2:33pm
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 | ignore this
marrying type or not, it must feel great to have that option should you decide, one day. i'm so happy for you, dear...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/16/2008 @ 2:33pm
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
You are ridiculous. I am sorry but you sound like you got pulled right out of the middle ages. You think any intelligent woman is a witch? They used to believe seizures were caused by demons too. No gay person that I have talked to has ever though their behavior was bad. So it is not as you said before a willful disagreeance with what is proper. They think the rules of bigots like you are wrong. You use your religion to justify hate. You aren't much better than the KKK who use BS lies to justify their hatred of anyone different than them.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2008 @ 2:36pm
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008
I think that language could be problematic because there are some nonreligious civil unions of the opposite-sex, particularly atheists, that DON"T WANT the "marriage" designation because they know it is loaded with religious implications.
The key is homosexual unions having THE SAME legal status as heterosexuals unions - if you have achieved that, then there is nothing more the state needs to do.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/16/2008 @ 2:37pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008
The pursuit of science was also considered to be evil. Does that mean all scientists now-a-days are sinners?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2008 @ 2:38pm
LVL,
I'd have some sympathy if for the last couple hundred years the church had been pleading with the state to stop using their word "marriage" and to stop bestowing state provided legal privelleges on the religious word....but they didn't complain. They didn't complain.
So now the word means something else. Pick a new one for religious sactified untion...how about "pritchard"?
I went to the church and got pritchared today.
Posted by anarchist at 05/16/2008 @ 2:41pm
Posted by anarchist at 05/16/2008
Lol!!!!!!!
Good one!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/16/2008 @ 2:44pm
When the marriage laws were written they didn't even have fertility tests. Another reason to change the laws. That's the job of the legislature.
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/16/2008 | ignore this person
Fertility tests have been around long enough for legislatures to have instituted them if marriage was really about reproduction.
LL The word "marriage" is actually Latinate in origin, so I don't see how if could've originated in a Hebrew Old Testament or a Greek New Testament. The word "marry" has its ultimate roots in the Latin "maritare" meaning "to give in marriage". It has possible older antecedents going pack to the Proto Indo-European "meri--" ("young woman"). If it's of Latinate origin, then the source is Roman law, which was of decidedly pagan origin.
In England, the idea that one would need a license or a ceremony to be legally married didn't come into play until the Marriage Act of 1753, which required a ceremony performed by an Anglican cleric, so the idea of marriage as an intrinsically religious ceremony does not have the ancient vintage you claim for it.
In fact, the above-mentioned statute didn't apply in the American colonies, which continued to recognize common-law marriage (which is still recognized in twelve states).
Posted by Jefferson_Locke at 05/16/2008 @ 2:45pm
or a ceremony
I meant a ceremony sanction by church and/or state.
Posted by Jefferson_Locke at 05/16/2008 @ 2:50pm
Posted by Jefferson_Locke at 05/16/2008
Common law "marriages" were actually a from of resistance to the Church, in that many early American settlers did not want to be under the authority of the church at all.
This is similar to many atheists today that object to their unions being called "marriages", and I don't think the California Supreme Court took sufficient notice of these non-religious civil unions and their concerns in their decision.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/16/2008 @ 2:59pm
METTEYYA
Except that common-law marriages antedate the Marriage Act with the clerical requirement. Further, the fact that common-law marriages were still considered a kind of marriage suggests that an aversion to the religious aspect of the ceremony wasn't an aversion to the term.
Posted by Jefferson_Locke at 05/16/2008 @ 3:10pm
Therefore and reluctantly, that is why a constitutional amendment is necessary.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008
Which was EXACTLY my point, LVLIB.
According to the way the Constitution is NOW..."gay marriage" HAS to be legal, both from a "full faith" clause standpoint and a 14th Amend, Sect 1 standpoint.
Which is why YOUR side NEEDS a Constitutional Amendment to ban it....and won't get it....and McCain knows it and is using the "send it to the states" dodge to placate you guys in the Religious Right...but to leave open his open-mindedness for the Independents.
Regardless of his lame political manuevering....you're right and MARYBRET and others don't seem to get it...
it is UN-Constitutional to deny gays and lesbians the same rights as heterosexuals for the civil contract of marriage.
You're wrong that they want "the religious aspect" since there's nothing that can force you or any other church, synagogue, or mosque to perform said ceremony.
Posted by Mask at 05/16/2008 @ 3:23pm
So, a couple of things. First and foremost, before the arrows come flying, I think it's worth pointing out that I definitely favor the inclusion of gay marriage. None of the theological arguments against it seem at all convincing (and I think some of the conservative posters should recognize that there is ongoing DEBATE on this issue in the religious community), even if those were sufficient to justify law.
That being said, though, I also don't think that imposing it through "judicial legislation" is justified. None of the responses against this half of the argument seem at all coherent. Every argument dealing with the general idea of "activism" misses the fact that most of the hugely important changes made in our history have come through activism...by the legislative and executive branches, which are explicitly CHARGED with creating law. The whole point of my argument, however, is that the judicial branch is NOT charged with making law. Its function is to interpret existing law, not to create new law.
So what does that mean? When the Court strikes down a law, it does so on the basis that the law is unconstitutional, i.e. that it violates the Constitution (either state or national). The real question then becomes: what does the Constitution mean? Some would contend that it simply means whatever the judge believes it ought to mean; that's how activism tends to be defined (and, I think, should be defined) when it's not simply used as a cute political catch-phrase. This standard is hugely problematic for at least two reasons. One, it destroys the idea (crucial for the role of the judiciary) of the Constitution as law, since a law's meaning is established at the time of enactment (otherwise it's democratically illegitimate). Two, on a more practical level, it destroys the idea of things like a bedrock of rights. The only way things like the Bill of Rights can act as a stable guarantor of rights to begin with is if their meaning is understood to be stable across time (though obviously the stable principles within them have to be applied to new cases). Otherwise, they can be expanded OR RETRACTED whenever particular judges decide to do so. That's a terrible precedent for the legal system, and undermines its basic purpose as distinct from the other two branches.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/16/2008 @ 3:53pm
MBB & LVL,
Your recent points are well taken (which is that the state has no business being involved in private relationships). But because they are now involved you cannot now change the rules and say.....it's only OK to bestow these rights of "marriage" on hetro-sexuals.
The moment that the state started co-opting the word marriage and bestowed rights upon the word that only a state can was the moment to object......not a couple hundred years later when it now becomes inconvenient for you.
Posted by anarchist at 05/16/2008 @ 3:59pm
And quite honestly - if I were gay and if I'd been in a gay longterm relationship and if I'd been attempting to get married and had been denied by my state I would be very carefully looking at the merits of a lawsuit to recover my losses (taxes, healthcare, etc). I don't see how I could lose.
Posted by anarchist at 05/16/2008 @ 4:04pm
Identifying immoral behavior is part of my responsibility as a pastor.
lvliberty1
better get a better mirror, then.
Friday, May 16, 2008 4:12:55 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 4:06pm
MBB
The state involves itself in marriage because it involves a major change in titles to property, inheritance rights, survivorship benefits, etc.
Further, the state does often involve itself in other types of contracts. Specifically, certain occupations require a license from the state before such a person can engage in a contract to provide certain services.
Commercial codes regulate what conditions may be stated in contracts and the methods of enforcement.
THRAWN Who has contended that the Constitution is what judges say it is. Where is your substantiation that such has been applied in the instant case. You're striking at straw men.
Posted by Jefferson_Locke at 05/16/2008 @ 4:07pm
Thrawn,
The CSC interpreted the constitution. That's its job (as you correctly point out). However, interpretation is NOT EVER black and white there are a million shades of grey. If there was an impirical right and wrong interpretation of a constitution there would not be a need for a federal and states supreme court. Further there would not need to be more than one Justice since there could only be one interpretation.....this ruling was 4-3. How can four very intelligent people come to the exact opposite conclusion than 3 other very intelligent people? Shades of grey.
Posted by anarchist at 05/16/2008 @ 4:12pm
LVL,
But the state did change the meaning of marriage.....just not in ways you objected to before. The original religious intent of marriage was never to get a tax advantage. The original religious intent of a marriage ceremony was never to be granted the authority to pull the feeding tube from a brain dead spouse. These are changes the state has made......letting two men or two women get merried is just another evolution.....but this one you object to.
Posted by anarchist at 05/16/2008 @ 4:22pm
<i>Posted by Jefferson_Locke at 05/16/2008</i>
Many previous posters (particularly those saying that "activism," not the action of "stubborn state legislators,") is the way to achieve meaningful changes. If you'd like me to cite some, I'd be more than happy to.
<i>Posted by anarchist at 05/16/2008</i>
This is partially right; there are certainly ambiguities involved, but I don't think that entails a free-for-all. Judges are there because there are ambiguities, but that doesn't mean that some answers aren't better than others. Those derived from originally-understood principles are, frankly, better than those which are not. That's the argument I'm making.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/16/2008 @ 4:36pm
here's the story. it's about denying equal rights to people you disapprove of. all the straw arguments from the Whigs here are about how much they disapprove of homosexuals. most churches, but not all, are in that line of work too. gay=bad. they can dress it up in silks and satin it's still hate, misanthropy.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/16/2008 @ 4:41pm
liberty, can you pinpoint which aspects of homosexual behavior or immoral, according to your belief system?
second, is 'penetration' (i.e. dick in ass, dick in mouth, tongue in ass, tongue in mouth, tongue in vagina, dildo in vagina, hand in vagina) an indicator of homosexual behavior, or are more subtle forms of homosexual interaction like holding hands, kissing, cuddling, sleeping, etc?
and where do you draw the line between members of the opposite sex holding hands, and members of the same sex holding hands? if i hold hands with a woman (which i often do, whether or not i fuck her), am i a homosexual? or is it at the point where i decide to insert a body part into one of her orifices that i become a homosexual?
or is it a much wider issue of 'lifestyle'? i.e. do i spend my time frolicking with other women, or living with other women, or raising children with other women?
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 @ 4:51pm
Thrawn,
Not so simple......you want to have judges in a court who you think will see YOUR shade of grey. So long as a judge can read, they can interpret a wishy washy document like a constitution in any number of ways. The "original intent" argument is very shakey to me because the framers could have been MUCH more specific and precise had they not wanted the document to be open to interpretation that changes with the times. IOW there is an argument to be made that the ORIGINAL INTENT of the framers was to have one branch of the government evolve the Constitution to make it relevant throughout the generations.
The very notion that there is a right type or wrong type of Judge is a shade of grey.
Posted by anarchist at 05/16/2008 @ 5:08pm
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
My heart would be broken, and I would still love them.
Now, if all three decided not to get married and have children, there's gonna be hell to pay, 'cause I want grandchildren dammit, they owe me!!.. :-)
BTW, I didn't think you had any young ones. May I ask how old are they?
Posted by ACook at 05/16/2008 @ 5:10pm
Actually I do. I am a sinner saved by grace. Yet, that requires me to change those behaviors that displease G-d.
Posted by lvliberty1
great.
now, go back and reread all your old posts.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 5:46pm
yeah, and slavery was constitutional, too.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 5:49pm
"The man/woman definition was constitutional for 140 years"
again, there was no such thing as a "man/woman definition" for the duration of those 140 years.
and even if there was, you'd be hard pressed to define what a "man" is and what a "woman" is.
is it chromosome-based? penis/vagina based? hormone-based?
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 @ 5:50pm
darladoon
given the anononimity* of the internet,
i've seen some "interesting" debates arise here as to the suspected gender of the posters.
odd.
maybe gender should be determined through a lottery.
oh, wait. it already is.
Friday, May 16, 2008 6:17:18 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 6:11pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/16/2008
Not neccesarily. Look at marriage settlements. Look at SPIELDBERGS marriage settlements. There were no kids involved. Pre-nups are to protect assets in case of divorce. SOME things have to do with kids but others don't. There are issues of money that deal specifically with the spouse. Also the issue of who gets to pull the plug and things like that.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2008 @ 6:11pm
*hi guys.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 6:11pm
"WRONG! When four judges can redefine what the Constituion means on a whim, the Constitutions doesn't mean a fucking thing."
is everything out of marybretbard's mouth today going to be false and/or stupid?
"four judges acting on a whim"? even though they were explicity given the case, and are entitled to issue a court order?
would mary have rather than judges NOT issued anything? or issued the reverse decision, in which case, it is patently obvious that marybretbard is clearly more concerned about the OUTCOME of the court's decision rather than the constitutionally-enacted means by which they arrived at said outcome?
here's another ridiculous comment by marybretbard from earlier:
"I agree that CA marriage law should be changed to include gays, but that is a job for the legislature. But the Judges usurped the legislature's duties and wrote a new marriage law."
yet another profound misunderstanding of how the law works. to assert that these judges were acting independently of their oath of office, or of the law in california, is so ridiculously absurd, that is deserves to response.....
Posted by darladoon at 05/16/2008 @ 6:44pm
It doesn't have to for the spouse. There are pre-nups and stuff. The inheritance is for the children.
No, inheritance can also cover the spouses. Further, pre-nups are designed for special occasions, normally, the state defines how property relations are affected by marriage (and divorce).
Posted by brunowe at 05/16/2008 @ 6:48pm
"Actually I do. I am a sinner saved by grace. Yet, that requires me to change those behaviors that displease G-d."
<Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008>
It will be a great satisfaction, when at the end of time, the truly righteous see the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and LVLIBS called before the judgment seat, arraigned for their un-biblical and un-righteous self-righteousness, then sent flailing into the nether darkness. Their self-deluded, self-congratulatory, self-serving interpretations of red-letter gospel are a scandal to the true followers of Christ, folks that have the humility to confess that their judgment is not a judgment that can be substituted for that of divine authority and the continual, inveterate practice of doing so is heresy, the one sin that cannot be forgiven because it denies the sanctity of divine authority itself.
So Monsignor Storm Drain, thou hadst best cover thyself in sackcloth and ashes henceforth to spend the rest of thy days repeating, "I'm not worthy. I'm not worthy." Because, Lucy, you got a whole lot of 'splaining to do.
Posted by goyadad at 05/16/2008 @ 6:55pm
I want to answer both Darla and Anarchist here, because I don't think their arguments are at all adequate. Before they do, though, I want to put in one quick caveat: I actually know almost nothing about California's constitution, which is why I want to refrain (and, I think, have refrained) from attacking the specific decision. What I want to address instead is the overarching framework discussion.
The argument that I (and, I think, many others) have tried to make is that judges should have a very limited conception of their own authority (that limited conception being the reason they're isolated from public opinion to begin with). Their responsibility is simple (though carrying it out is not): interpret existing law.
I don't doubt that this responsibility can often be ambiguous; judges can often disagree, and quite reasonably so, on how the principles that have been enacted into law should be applied to a particular case. That, I would say, is the ambiguity that was meant to be built into the Constitution. I don't think, though, that this ambiguity was designed to create affirmative social change; instead, if the ambiguity is sufficient, the Court should presume in favor of a law's constitutionality and only overturn it when the law is clearly unconstitutional.
The Bill of Rights, where most of these kinds of arguments come from, is a perfect example. The explicit stated purpose of the Bill of Rights was to create a more-or-less ironclad foundation of protections upon which government could not intrude. The only way that's possible is if the principles of the Bill of Rights are understood to be stable, lasting from the time of enactment until they are changed by constitutional amendment.
All of this means that Supreme Court judges are not intended to be agents of social change (and not just because lots of credible evidence indicates that they're bad ones even when they try). Their role is to ensure that enacted laws don't contradict the principles built into the Constitution; anything beyond that makes their insulation from democratic pressures wholly illegitimate.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/16/2008 @ 6:58pm
Besides providing the opportunity of jangling Msgr. Storm Drain's grate, this thread has provided no end of entertainment, to me at least.
Nichols' analysis--what kicked this particular debris slide in motion--is especially risible. To use Feingold's margin in the WI senate race vs. Kerry's margin in the POTUS sweepstakes is absurd on any account. It's as if he thinks gay marriage was the one factor determining this outcome. Wow. And he gets paid for this?
Of course, this is one of those issues, like race, that everyone looks at through his/her pinprick hole view on the vast sensorabilia of experiential existence. Everyone is a monad, and every monad is entitled to its opinion. Just like every monad has its own asshole and the nose to smell it with. It is, as far as the greater welfare of society is concerned, completely irrelevant. It is a matter of personal preference only. Folks like Msgr. S.D. will object, "Oh, no, no, no. It's in the Bible. It is condemned in Leviticus. It is condemned by Paul." Who cares? Who voted for Paul? Where is Leviticus cited in the civil law of the U.S. republic?
But, as I never tire of pointing out, the people are as dumb as the owners of this country could with them to be. They will go off on a queer crusade and sacrifice every form of social and political progress to the non-advancement of this particular private agenda. They will enrapture themselves in a fit of homophobic euphoria, delighted to inveigh against the evils of sodomistic affection (even when, if it existed, it couldn't be involved because of, er, matters of basic plumbing and anatomy) because it provides them with one more opportunity to prove to themselves if no one else that they have never crushed on the cute guy in the tenor section of the choir.
Meanwhile, our masters in the Master Class, will continue to pay the media piper to pipe the tunes to which we dance while they drain us of every last drop of blood and leave this planet cooked and lifeless abode for non-human speciation and, at last, further evolution.
This whole homo sapiens experiment was a wrong idea. Gaia regrets it and she is hard at work shaking off the infestation.
Posted by goyadad at 05/16/2008 @ 7:19pm
Oh well, the Constitutionality issue, between me and LVLIB, has been settled....while MARYBRET still trying to figure out how the states get to subvert the Ol Document.
Meanwhile, per LVLIB, I'd like to tell DARLA how sorry I am that she's possessed by the Devil for liking chicks!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/16/2008 @ 8:15pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008 |
If it's a "consideration"...then it is a POSSIBILITY, isn't, Larry?
So...is it POSSIBLE that a lesbian like DARLA is, essentially by your previous utterance, "possessed by the Devil"?
Yes...or "keep trying to walk it back"?
Posted by Mask at 05/16/2008 @ 8:48pm
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?
Posted by brantl at 05/16/2008 | ignore this person
.
I wasn't advocating or defending it Brantl. Darin wanted to claim that the state's only interest in regulating marriage was centered on procreation. I was pointing out the problems with that assertion. My question was meant to lead him to the EXACT conclusion that it lead you too.
Namely, once you claim procreation as the only grounds for marriage, you have to start making exceptions. Many states do this already. However, the ONLY reason they make some exceptions (like for older people and for infertile cousins) and not others (like for siblings and same-sex couples) is because some people find it...
..."icky".
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008 @ 9:45pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008
So, if the POSSIBILITY exists for our friend DARLA to be "possessed by the Devil" for being a lesbian...
then there is nothing wrong in me extending my sympathies to her on this supernaturally sad occasion of her learning that her desire for the female form is due to her domination by Beelzebub.....is there?
Posted by Mask at 05/16/2008 @ 10:42pm
hahahahahaha. whattaretard
Posted by emile duBois at 05/16/2008 | ignore this person
Why, you old son of a storm trooper...I thought you were ignoring me......
Posted by TransitDave at 05/16/2008 @ 11:00pm
and the bath houses citing 2 examples.
Posted by lvliberty1
how do YOU know what goes on, huh?
Friday, May 16, 2008 11:55:42 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 11:49pm
darla, you poor soul.
can you post that head spinnin' trick on youtube for us?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 11:52pm
lvliberty,
you seem like a good dude.
abandon the dark side.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/16/2008 @ 11:53pm
<i>Of course, this is one of those issues, like race, that everyone looks at through his/her pinprick hole view on the vast sensorabilia of experiential existence. Everyone is a monad, and every monad is entitled to its opinion. .. It is, as far as the greater welfare of society is concerned, completely irrelevant. It is a matter of personal preference only. Folks like Msgr. S.D. will object, "Oh, no, no, no. It's in the Bible. It is condemned in Leviticus. It is condemned by Paul." Who cares? Who voted for Paul? Where is Leviticus cited in the civil law of the U.S. republic?</i>
I don't quite get what your argument is here. First off, what distinction are you drawing between "personal preference" and "legitimate democratic perspective"? Those that tend to favor the strictly utilitarian (and narrowly utilitarian at that) calculus that you seem to suggest? Why?
Second, though, I think this argument just misunderstands how a democracy works. Yes, there's a deliberative process with both majority rule and minority rights. Part of democratic discourse, though, is precisely that it deals with substance, i.e. what kinds of things government will support, prohibit, etc. How is this different? What philosophically-grounded position wouldn't your question here equally exclude?
In short: who voted for Mill or Bentham?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/17/2008 @ 03:07am
Sorry, that was quoted from Goyadad.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/17/2008 @ 03:07am
Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2008
"However, the ONLY reason they make some exceptions (like for older people and for infertile cousins) and not others (like for siblings and same-sex couples) is because some people find it... ..."icky"."
The State does not allow marriage between siblings primarily because children of these unions have a relatively high probability of having severe birth defects. The 'icky' part is secondary, though no less real.
The real issue with gay marriage is that the State has no more interest in promoting these unions than any other private relationship between consenting adults. Society has a compelling interest of the highest priority in promoting the bearing and healthy rearing of children. Since homosexual couples cannot, by definition, produce children, the State has no interest in giving any special sanction to their relationship.
Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2008 @ 06:10am
Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2008
Same two arguments and both fall apart.
1. No OBJECTIVE (i.e. non-fundamentalist Christian) data that a child raised in a same sex couple family is any less "healthy" (mentally, physically, or emotionally) than a child raised in a heterosexual couple family.
2. Infertile and elderly couples cannot, by definition, produce children. So if that is your rationale, then you MUST insist that the State demand fertility tests before issueing marriage licenses.....or that's just a b.s. argument and you know it.
Posted by Mask at 05/17/2008 @ 07:07am
Thrawn,
We fully agree that judges on the federal or states SC's are there to strictly reveiw the constitutionality of the laws. Where we appear to differ is that you seem to think that such decisions cannot be allowed to create social change. But I contend that a Supreme Court cannot shirk its duty to interpret the Constitution even if by doing so it does create social change.
The way the majority on the Cali court saw it was that the Constitution did not allow for a law that limited the right of marriage to only straight couples.
I doubt that 4 of 7 are actually gay and will generate any personal gain from this ruling, they just read the Constitution and read the law and saw they were incompatible.
Having said that, three other judges (all presumably far more familiar with the Cali Const. than you or I) saw it in the exact opposite way. Were those three trying to insert their own personal bias into their decision?
Posted by anarchist at 05/17/2008 @ 08:37am
the supremes constantly revise what is constitutional. Dred Scott decision anyone?
Posted by emile duBois at 05/17/2008 @ 09:57am
Why, you old son of a storm trooper...I thought you were ignoring me......
Posted by TransitDave at 05/16/2008 | ignore this person
you son of a whore.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/17/2008 @ 09:58am
Debate requires language, language
The distinction between A and B is forever polluted by the terms applied to the distinction, e.g., estate tax / death tax, pro-life/ pro-choice.
As in many other domains, the corporate media echo chamber has stacked the deck against us non-millionaires.
Neocons got us beat bad on the LANGUAGE:
"strict constitutionalists" - implies an opposite of broad, non-constitutional
"interpreting existing law" - implies an opposite of interpreting nonexistent, make-believe something
"agents of social change" - implies some sort of un-elected national shrink role
"activist judges" - again completely pejorative, you'd never see it on a resume, no badge of honor
Even before "ready... get set..." progressives are way, way behind.
Posted by winyahn at 05/17/2008 @ 11:14am
Posted by winyahn at 05/17/2008 '
Ahh, but this is one issue that their "strict constructionalist" argument falls apart.
They CAN'T jude "gay marriage" against the law, because "strictly" viewing the Constitution, there is no mention of it being illegal and by the "strictest" interpretation of the 14th Amendment, gays and lesbians are citizens and entitled to the same rights as any other citizen.
Only a "broad interpretation" (including things like "procreation", "tradition", and "Judeo-Christian values"...none of which are in the Constitution)....allow for banning gays and lesbians from marrying!
Posted by Mask at 05/17/2008 @ 11:57am
All of this means that Supreme Court judges are not intended to be agents of social change...
Their role is to ensure that enacted laws don't contradict the principles built into the Constitution;
Posted by Thrawn at 05/16/2008 | ignore this person
.
Given that this is EXACTLY what the California Supreme Court did, I really don't understand why you are trying to pick away at their decision.
'Other' activists, acting as "agents of social change" attempted to create a law that restricted the rights of a minority.
The California Supreme Court reviewed that law and found it unconstitutional.
EXACTLY as you desctibed their proper role.
So what is your problem with that again?
Posted by Lillian at 05/17/2008 @ 2:37pm
If I wash the dishes (which I do every day), does that mean that because of tradition citing that women did most of the work in the kitchen, that I am no longer a man. Of course not. It is not related to the definition.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/16/2008 | ignore this person
.
Interesting analogy. Women traditionally wash the dishes. in your house, you do it. I would certainly agree that doesn't make you a woman.
Of course, by the 'logic' I see you and others posting here, you should now be considered a deviant and a pervert and the wingnuts should be rushing into print an ammendment banning your 'icky' behaviour!
Posted by Lillian at 05/17/2008 @ 2:42pm
Thus the need for a constitutional amendment.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/17/2008 | ignore this person
Have you, just once ever, considered the idea of minding your own goddamned business? The only marriage of rightful concern to you is your own, and if gay marriage poses a threat to your marriage, or anyone else's, then you (or they as the case may be) have far greater problems with which to deal. You talk of the "perversion" of others, while ignoring your own bigotries, your own hates and fears, your own need to exercise control over the lives of all others - and those are true perversions. I for one am sick to death of hearing the sanctimonious claiming that they "don't hate the sinner, only the sin". What an arrogant, hubristic crock. First, it reeks of utter dishonesty. And further, who the hell are you to determine that others are "sinning"? You support a criminal regime that has committed mass murder in Iraq, for profit, that has committed torture here and abroad. A regime that has committed one crime after another. And you have the temerity to talk about "perversion"? The truly perverted in this country continue to stand on your side of the political spectrum, Rev.
Posted by jmusolino at 05/17/2008 @ 2:59pm
Thus the need for a constitutional amendment.
Posted by lvliberty1
don't be greedy.
i could have decided to live with my wife without any formal ceremony to announce our "marriage".
but we did, and it was really cool. i'm glad we did.
share the word; don't be greedy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/17/2008 @ 5:19pm
It is not hate to say that what a word means should remain it's meaning.
Posted by lvliberty1
so, you don't "feel" it's "cool".
i "see".
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/17/2008 @ 5:21pm
That is what you are doing when you tell me as an ordained minister that I cannot carry out the responsibilities of my faith.
Your comments are simply the arrogant rantings of ignorance rather than a debate of the facts. Not at all unusual for the leftists on this website.
Posted by lvliberty1
nonsense. nonsense. nonsense. nonsense. nonsense. nonsense. nonsense. nonsense. nonsense.
nine nonsenses for you.
i am married. i've never asked for "god's" blessing,
because i don't care if god blesses my marriage (i sure hope so, but hey).
lots of people are married who think your faith is poppycock. they've got their faith AND their married.
in america, for example.
people of TWO faiths get married!
imagine that. people like me (wife catholic, me polypracticalgodiscool).
who's saying YOU'VE got to marry gay couples? i can't get married in a catholic church unless i do all that stuff.
Saturday, May 17, 2008 5:38:29 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/17/2008 @ 5:32pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/17/2008 | ignore this person
You know what else Frosty...
In the US, you could have gone to the county courthouse, and the 2 of you could have simply signed a piece of paper declaring your marriage...no religion, no ceremony, no vows. It's called a "Marriage License".
It is completely devoid of any mention of God, religion, sanctity, etc.
And despite this complete separation of the "Marriage License" from all things 'religious', and, despite all of rhetoric about preserving the 'sanctity' of marriage because of it's 'religious significance', it's 'basis' in religion, and its importance to their 'religious beliefs', had you 2 obtained this "Marriage License", not one of the folks ranting about it now would have objected.
They only bring this whole 'religious argument' up NOW because the state was about to bestow this "Marriage License" on people of the same sex.
And they think that's 'icky'.
Posted by Lillian at 05/17/2008 @ 5:49pm
I once knew an Episcopalian lady in Newport, Rhode Island, who asked me to design and build a doghouse for her Great Dane. The lady claimed to understand God and His Ways of Working perfectly. She could not understand why anyone should be puzzled about what had been or about what was going to be. And yet, when I showed her a blueprint of the doghouse I proposed to build, she said to me, "I'm sorry, but I never could read one of those things."
"Give it to your husband or your minister to pass on to God," I said, "and, when God finds a minute, I'm sure he'll explain this doghouse of mine in a way that even you can understand."
She fired me. I shall never forget her. She believed that God liked people in sailboats much better than He liked people in motorboats. She could not bear to look at a worm. When she saw a worm, she screamed.
She was a fool, and so am I, and so is anyone who thinks he can see what God is Doing.
Bokonon
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/17/2008 @ 6:34pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=frosty%20zoom
she was right to fire you for your arrogance.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/17/2008 @ 7:16pm
Thus the need for a constitutional amendment.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/17/2008 |
And guess which Presidential candidate opposes that?
All of them.
Posted by Mask at 05/17/2008 @ 7:49pm
a civil marriage is a civil contract. we don't allow discrimination in civil contracts, we did but no longer.
Christ speaks often against calling another person a sinner. you can look it up.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/17/2008 @ 8:12pm
Not at all unusual for the leftists on this website.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/17/2008
Not at all unusual for the right on this website either. I contend that if your religion gains state benefits. For instance if MARRIAGE allows for you to gain certain benefits like for instance tax deductions then it is a state matter and no longer JUST religious. Now if you don't want to change your religious meaning of marriage then you have to lose all incentives that it comes with to get married. That way if you want to keep it a private matter for the church to choose then if you want tax exemption you have to have a civil union. Then if you want to have a marriage you go to the Church and take care of it yourself. As long as marriage is licensed by the state and as long as their are government granted incentives to being married then the ceremony that involves the government comes under state control.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/17/2008 @ 8:27pm
Tiger got to hunt,
Bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder, "Why, why, why?"
Tiger got to sleep,
Bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.
-- bokonon.
Saturday, May 17, 2008 8:52:46 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/17/2008 @ 8:46pm
Christ speaks often against calling another person a sinner. you can look it up.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/17/2008
Didn't he say something like let he who is without sin throw the first stone? I guess that means judge everyone or something to our religious right. Our local pastor thinks it means to judge everyone whether they ask for his judgement or not.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/17/2008 @ 8:48pm
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.
-- bokonon.
Saturday, May 17, 2008 8:57:59 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/17/2008 @ 8:51pm
bokonon
a new one to me.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/17/2008 @ 9:23pm
I wanted all things
To seem to make some sense,
So we could all be happy, yes,
Instead of tense.
And I made up lies
So that they all fit nice,
And I made this sad world
A par-a-dise.
-- bokonon.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/17/2008 @ 11:52pm
MBB, Thrawn et al --
I suggest you go back and re-read Brown v. Board of Education. Are you going to claim that that decision was a result of "activist judges" as well?
For over half a century, since Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court had claimed that the US Constitution allowed Jim Crow "separate but 'equal'" schools, bathrooms, train cars, water fountains, and so on. And then, in Brown, the court said, uh, no, it doesn't. For decades the assumption was that it would be fine to outlaw interracial marriage. The Court in Loving v. Virginia said, uh, no, that's unconstitutional.
Are decisions outlawing bans on interracial marriage, and outlawing Jim Crow apartheid-style segregation, the product of "activist, arrogant, unelected" judges?
Finally, to MBB -- you really haven't a clue what judges do. Read Marbury v. Madison, if you even know what that is. In that decision, the very first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, ruled explicitly that it's judges who get to decide what the law means, particularly the Constitution. That's what they do, and the very first Chief Justice of the United States said so, over 200 years ago. So your arguments about judges "deciding on a whim" what the Constitution means are utter bullshit.
Posted by siegeljd at 05/18/2008 @ 01:29am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/18/2008
BTW, this is old hat and something to look for when you see somebody making a "Biblical argument", like LVLIB...
The fundamentalist/evangelical Christian needs "the hammer" (i.e. the stuff to bash people over the heads, anti-homosexuality, "why it's okay to do this, even though Jesus said that")...
they resort to PAUL and the Old Testament...which "oddly" happen to be two sources that have NOTHING to directly do with Jesus. (The Hebrew chroniclers pre-dated him, and Paul never met him in person.)
When they want "the pillow" (the "good stuff" to sell to the non-believers and make the believers sound good and kind)....they actually quote the guys who KNEW Jesus, like Matthew, Luke, etc.
Posted by Mask at 05/18/2008 @ 07:16am
Posted by siegeljd at 05/18/2008 | ignore this person
nicely skewered.
you must remember that most of these Whig posters just repeat what has become right wing dogma. they are not intelligent enough to understand the issue, but keep turning up with the same shopworn platitudes.
I just ignore the dumb f*cks
Posted by emile duBois at 05/18/2008 @ 09:55am
No Christian currently has that ability toward unbelievers. During the day of judgment, yes. But in this life no.
this makes no sense.
what of all those non-believing souls that die before the day of judgement?
do they go to the turkey farm?
Sunday, May 18, 2008 11:38:08 AM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/18/2008 @ 11:31am
And thus people like myself have a duty before G-d to call those engaged in behavior that G-d has determined sinful (not me, but G-d) to repent and change.
Now you or anyone else are certainly free to listen or not listen, believe or not believe.
so why don't you believe?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/18/2008 @ 11:44am
Posted by Mask at 05/18/2008
That always pisses me off Mask. They are always so selective in what they pull from even though their religion is supposed to be based on JESUS' message. Not the Old Testament.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/18/2008 @ 1:13pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/18/2008 | ignore this person
.
Yes, our own resident Caiaphas...quotes scripture to support his contentention that his 'G-d' instructs him that it's prefectly fine for him not only to pronounce judgement, but to administer it.
Hey Larry, here's one relevant passage concerning 'judgement' that you you left out.
it comes just after Jesus has been arrested and dragged before the chief priests and Sanhedrin, when He is being accused of violating religious doctrine.
This is from the Book of Matthew:
.
5Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. 58But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.
The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.
Finally two came forward 61and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' "
Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 63But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[a] the Son of God."
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"
"He is worthy of death," they answered.
Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?"
.
Yes, I'm this account is included in Matthew He WANTS people like you to be passing and administering judgements...
...just like your mentor, Caiaphas.
Posted by Lillian at 05/18/2008 @ 1:17pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/18/2008
Simple proposition....ask them what JESUS ...SPECIFICALLY...said about homosexuality.
Not Paul, who never met Jesus, or the old Hebrews who thought they should be put to death....
what did "The Big Guy's Son" say about it?
(BTW, it's still a trick question. Since we're still relying on the Gospels, none of which were written by Jesus...so it's hearsay)
Posted by Mask at 05/18/2008 @ 1:33pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/17/2008 | ignore this person
I keep repeating and will repeat, the government can issue civil contracts according to whatever laws each state dictates.
.
They do Larry. And guess what they call the 'civil contracts'? Not 'civil contracts'...they're called "Marriage License"s. Funny nobody ever objected to the fact they were completely separate from the religious concept...but still referred to as 'marriage'. Why did it ONLY become a problem to refer to this state contract as 'marriage' when the state wanted to offer it to same-sex couples?
.
But I will fight as long as I have breath to keep a religious sacrament to be able to keep it's historic definition without the government intruding into religion and thus violating the 1st amendment.
.
Really? Where was all of this 'fighting' when the state took the religious sacrament out of the state contract that it calls a 'Marriage License"? Tell the truth...you DIDN'T fight...at all...did you?
.
Furthermore, what you are saying is that liberals should be able to also dictate how we practice our faith and what our doctrines should be. That is what you are doing when you tell me as an ordained minister that I cannot carry out the responsibilities of my faith.
.
Whoa, who said that? Who said you couldn't practice your faith? Who is trying to dictate what your religious doctrines should be? This is the state contract we're talking about, not your religious faith. And the reality is, it is YOU who are trying to do the dictating regarding a state contract...not your religious faith.
.
Your comments are simply the arrogant rantings of ignorance rather than a debate of the facts. Not at all unusual for the leftists on this website.
.
Wow.
There's a concept in the study of psychology called 'projection'. It's basically the practice of attributing to others, one's own unacceptable thoughts or behaviours. Congratulations, you've just supplied us all with an absolutely perfect example!
Posted by Lillian at 05/18/2008 @ 1:38pm
First of all Mask, do you treat all historical records as hearsay if they were not recorded by the actual person speaking? Just curious what your standard is for history. It would seem you have little regard for the accuracy of recorded history based upon the standard you apply to Jesus.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/18/2008
Just because you believe the Bible is history LV doesn't make it so. This point is debatable. The only thing that has actually been proven is that Jesus the man existed. Beyond that no one knows if what the Bible says is true or not. Just because you do doesn't make it fact. So quoting the Bible at us is not fact. Is the Koran histroy? Is the Buddhavacana history? I would think you would contend that it is not but what makes it any less legitimate than the Bible?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/18/2008 @ 9:32pm
lvliberty1
NOT EVERYBODY IS CHRISTIAN.
IN FACT, MOST HUMANS AREN'T.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/18/2008 @ 11:11pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/17/2008 | ignore this person
Civil marriage is not a religious sacrament, Rev. It is a fundamental human right. The Christian definition of "marriage" is irrelevant to civil society. In case you've forgotten, the state issues marriage licenses. Of course, nobody is going to make you marry anyone whom you don't want to marry. So it's hardly a case of government intrusion into religion. But that's not your issue is it? You're looking to have religious intrusion into government. You want to have the right to control the lives of others. Otherwise, your own ministry has little or no apparent purpose. You're the one who brought up the matter of perversion, Rev. Since you did, I pointed out, quite rightly, that your support of the mass murder of civilians is a true perversion. Your bigotries are true perversions. Your desire to control the lives of others, to, as I said on a previous thread, force others to worship you in the guise of worshiping your idea of God - those are perversions. Rev, you called gays immoral, because, according to you, they allegedly engage in behavior they know to be wrong. Are you about to tell me that mass murder and torture are not wrong? You support that behavior. So either you feel those behaviors are correct or you yourself are guilty, by your own definition of perversion. Which is it? Oh, as for my arrogance and ignorance, nice try at the typical right-wing ploy of trying to project your own weaknesses and darker impulses onto those of us who don't share your opinions. However, as I said, your claim to "love the sinner and hate the sin" is the absolute essence of arrogance. And ignorance.
Posted by jmusolino at 05/18/2008 @ 11:48pm
I guess reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits Lillian?
Here it is again. What part of my statement that no believer currently has the ability to judge nonbelievers was too difficult for you?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/18/2008 | ignore this person
.
Oh my reading comprehension is just fine Larry.
YOu know juding is wrong.
And then try to pretend that the "difference between judging and calling something what it is"...
...isn't just semantic BS.
Posted by Lillian at 05/19/2008 @ 09:29am
And while Islam calls for forced worship
The Cow
[2.256] There is no compulsion in religion;
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 11:08am
There is no one that I would wish Hell upon. But many choose it rather than submit to Christ.
Posted by lvliberty1
so gandhi is in hell?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 11:17am
I actually pity you and the emptiness of your soul that you live with.
Posted by lvliberty1
now, THAT'S projection.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 11:18am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/18/2008
All of the people you present who are saying that Christian texts should be taken as fact are no less credible than anyone else. They have a laundry list of resume perks and good for them but it is still opinion backed up with "legal science." There are those legal scholars who would contend against them using legal science. Kind of like the debate over global warming.
However let's say we take your assertion to be true. That the Bible through the ancient texts rule has to be taken as legal proof. Then so does the Koran and the ancient religious texts of EVERY religion. Which means your Bible is no more valid than any other religions text.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 11:59am
There is no one that I would wish Hell upon. But many choose it rather than submit to Christ.
Posted by lvliberty1
it's the SUBMIT part that Liverty is so enamored of.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/19/2008 @ 12:26pm
LvLiberty-The fact that many people disagree with your views does not mean that they are choosing to go to hell.You do not decide anyones afterlife nor do you have any idea what comes next because no one does and being arrogant and claiming that you know what can't be known is pointless.People need to stop worrying about what the next life will bring and concern themselves with this life.Using fear of hell in order to get people to give money to churches is sick and shows that many are serving money and not God.Marriage has nothing to do with religion unless the couple is religious.It is the couple that determines what their marriage is and not a church.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/19/2008 @ 12:36pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008 | ignore this person
Larry, this is not a Judeo-Christian nation. It was not founded that way, it was not intended that way by its deist founders, and if you knew enough of American history, you'd know that. Judeo-Christian marriage is utterly irrelevant to the state version thereof. And the right to take a life partner is a basic human right, not requiring permission from self-appointed moral arbiters who happen to be "of the cloth".
Religion is not intruding in government? Sure, Larry, religion has had nothing to do with DOMA, or faith-based initiatives, has it? You and many others of your faith would force your religious opinions of marriage and women's reproductive rights on the larger society as a matter of governmental policy, but religion is not intruding on government. As for the definition of marriage and the first amendment, if your religion allows you to own slaves, is the 13th amendment a violation of your first amendment rights? How about polygamy? Human sacrifice? Should your religion embrace those beliefs, do applicable laws in these areas violate your rights?
As for forced worship, people like you have been trying to force your own religious beliefs down everyone's throats for years, whether it be public school prayer, ending women's reproductive rights, discrimination against gays, or labeling this an officially Christian nation. You've tried to amend the constitution to secure all of these things. In doing so, Larry, you are indeed trying to force the rest of us to worship your idea of God, to worship you. Rev, you're free to practice your religion. You're just not free to force it down my, or anyone else's throat, no matter how many Americans practice it. Which, of course, makes me one of those whom you label as anti-Christian (or anti-faith). Too bad I'm neither of those, Rev. Each of us has to navigate our own way to whatever follows. Each of us has to die when it's time. Unless you want to step into the shoes of others on that day, you'd best stop trying to force other to live in a manner that you dictate. I've become convinced reading your posts over time that the Lv part of your user name indicates Leave, as you are hardly a supporter of anyone's liberties but your own.
And, Rev, your own infantile response notwithstanding, as I said, your claim to "love the sinner and hate the sin" is the absolute essence of arrogance. Of hubris. Of ignorance.
As for the matter of war, it is nothing but mass murder, Rev. It is the intentional taking of other human life, on as massive scale, and for you to claim otherwise, while exalting those who are responsible, is the utter depth of depravity. In supporting them, you support their policies, including torture. Moral perversion before God? Sorry, Rev, but I'd guess that the mass murder of civilians is a true moral perversion before God, and if you think that war is anything but the most depraved of perversions, then it is I who pities the emptiness in your soul.
Posted by jmusolino at 05/19/2008 @ 1:07pm
so gandhi is in hell?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008
IF he answers, he only has two tacts...
1. Be VAGUE, start citing Scripture, but make no direct pronouncements on Gandhi's soul.
2. Be HONEST...and say "yes". (Since Gandhi died at-the-least a non-practicing Christian...though he said he embraced all religions).
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 1:21pm
Mask-You mentioned Paul earlier and one of the things that I find interesting about Paul is that he changed everyones names which made it impossible for anyone to go to Israel and check up on what he was saying about this person and his followers since no one in Israel would have known who Christ Jesus was nor would they have known who Joseph,Judas,Peter,James,John,,etc were since no Israelites had such names.One should wonder why he changed their names and why he did not want anyone to be able to go to Israel to check up on what he was saying..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/19/2008 @ 1:32pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/200
I love your thought process LV. You say that being against the war means we must be for the terrorists because why? There were no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we got there so doesn't that mean the being for the war is being for the terrorists because you guys gave them a new stepping stone.
Typical talking point conservative again Larry. That statement echoes "If you are not with us then you are against us." Which was probably one of the stupidest things I have ever heard uttered by a leader. Worse than let them eat their cake. Don't stoop to his level of saying that anyone who offers an opposing view is for the enemy. That's not America Larry. That's not Democracy. Those of us who live in a Democracy believe you can have opposing views without being a traitor to your country because that is basically what you are saying. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a traitor.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 2:09pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008
I guess you went with #1.
Come, Larry....simple question...
Given what you know about him (that he did NOT "accept Christ as his savior", but remained pan-religious, accepting all religions but sticking to his Hindu faith primarily)...
Given your religiious beliefs....
Is Mohandas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi in Hell?
yes/no?
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 2:46pm
LvLiberty-Your ways to get into heaven only cover those who are pretty much born into Christianity or Orthodox Judaism.Why would your God come up with that?You have no clue as to what standard Jesus had for getting into heaven since the vast majority of what he taught is not included in the gospels and it is known from many suppressed gospels that there are other views of Jesus that were around at the same time that Pauls views were forming and spreading and the ways the early church used to suppress those other views were very un-Jesus.No human that has ever lived deserves to burn in a lake of fire for eternity and it is quite sad that you believe that all people deserve that.Not even the most vile of humans deserves that.I'm just not seeing any love for the sinner in that belief.Why would your God create something that deserves hell and what does that say about their ability to create something good? I've known many people and most were good people who did not deserve hell so maybe you just hang around with the wrong crowd.We humans have little free will.We,very much,are controlled by our comfort zones,cultural coding,varying degrees of mental illness,and many other factors.We only delude ourselves into believing that we have complete free will because that makes us feel more in control.You could no more choose to become a devout Hindu than the devout Hindu could choose to be you.That is a serious comfort zone.We humans are very much comforted by the idea that we have the next life figured out.We don't.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/19/2008 @ 3:03pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008
Ahh but the church has implemented laws for money and gains. None I know of recently. But the no meat on friday thing and pastors not being able to marry. Both implemented so the church could make or keep money.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 3:08pm
LvLiberty-I only mentioned those that use fear of hell to get money for their churches, which is far more than you admit to,but mentioning only those who do that would not be bigoted nor ignorant since I did not say that all do it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/19/2008 @ 3:11pm
LvLiberty- No, I did not make it up that no Jew named Jesus existed at the time nor any other Jewish person whose name began with the letter J.Not many Jews back then had names that began with the letter J and it is Paul who is known to be the first to call this person by the name Christ Jesus and in his letters Paul never uses any of their real names.If you heard about about someone named Christ Jesus from Paul in Greece and you went to Israel and asked around about this person no one would know who you were talking about which I find odd.Ask around about a man who was related to Joseph and betrayed by Judas and they still would have no idea who you were talking about.Brother named James would not ring a bell for them,either. Why did Paul not provide more information like, his real name?
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/19/2008 @ 3:51pm
Where do you get such nonsense? Do you just make this stuff up?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008
I like how anything that opposes your view is nonsense whether you have heard the proof or not.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 4:30pm
I have a question to you LV. This is completely off topic but I have never gotten a sufficient answer. Why is it even though the lost Gospels can be dated back to around the same time as the other Gospels are they any less valid? The Gospel of Mary for instance. Why is it those are not considered to be apart of the Bible even though they too were written by followers of Jesus and why does the Church deny them so much?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 4:37pm
Also do you really believe that people lived to be 200 years old back in the day?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 4:39pm
Where do you get such nonsense? Do you just make this stuff up?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008
You can wikipedia for the sources of what he is talking about and then read about it. Apparently there is some debate over which of Pauls 13 letters were actually written by him though...interesting.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 4:44pm
LVLIB....try again...
Given what you know about him (that he did NOT "accept Christ as his savior", but remained pan-religious, accepting all religions but sticking to his Hindu faith primarily)...
Given your religiious beliefs....
Is Mohandas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi in Hell?
yes/no?
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 5:02pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008
Poor guy. Lived a life of nothing but good and got an eternity of torture for all his efforts.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 5:42pm
All because he was open minded enough to accept all religions and not just proclaim one as right...
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 5:43pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008
Fine he didn't live a life of pure good. But I will say he has lived a much better life than most of us spending most of his time trying to help others. But I guess that doesn't matter to people like you. Only that he turns to Jesus.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/19/2008 @ 7:19pm
therefore he is definitely in hell.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008 | ignore this person
.
Larry passes his judgement!
Posted by Lillian at 05/19/2008 @ 7:30pm
Those were Catholic doctrines that have no backing of scripture-they were the doctrine of men and Paul actually warned that men would actually implement such doctrines (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008 | ignore this person
.
SOOOO...Larry finally exposes his anti-Catholic bent...probably hoping nobody would notice.
.
1 Corintians 7:6-8
But this I say by way of concession, not of command. Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.
.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 ... Larry, these words to Timothy are from Paul...who himself chose a life of celibacy...
...just like Catholic priests do.
Choosing a life of celibacy is a discipline...not a doctrine. As usual, you've twisted the meaning to the point of perversion.
Posted by Lillian at 05/19/2008 @ 7:46pm
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth" (1 Tim. 4:1-3).
.
"deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons"
To Larry, that's the Catholic Church.
Posted by Lillian at 05/19/2008 @ 7:49pm
But the likelihood is that he is in Hell.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008
Boy...that was like pulling teeth, t'weren't it?
BTW, Gandhi said this...
I am unable to identify with orthodox Christianity. I must tell you in all humility that Hinduism, as I know it, entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being, and I find solace in the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads that I miss even in the Sermon on the Mount....I must confess to you that when doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of external tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita.
I consider western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ's Christianity.
Posted by Mask at 05/19/2008 @ 8:07pm
therefore he is definitely in hell.
Posted by lvliberty1
egad!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 10:50pm
how about gershwin?
is he in hell?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 10:52pm
what about moses?
he could never have accepted christ.
is he in hell?
did he do a bad job?
Monday, May 19, 2008 11:35:08 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 11:29pm
quick,
somebody tell tiger woods that he will go to hell!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 11:32pm
wait a second!
according to you,
my mom is in hell.
'scuse the tone, but,
FUCK YOU!
Monday, May 19, 2008 11:39:32 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 11:34pm
well, not really.
i just hope you can one day truly understand "jesus'" message.
one day........
peace,
fz.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/19/2008 @ 11:35pm
therefore he is definitely in hell.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/19/2008 | ignore this person
Really, Larry? On whose authority? Earlier, you accused me of ignorance and arrogance. Talk about projection on a massive scale. Gandhi is definitely in hell? And that would be...why? Because he didn't worship you? Because he didn't bow down to you, kneel before you, accept your idea of salvation? Of course, you'll respond that he didn't accept God, but that simply indicates the truth, that you continue to demand that you be worshipped, that in your eyes, you are God. You, Larry, a supporter of torturers and mass murderers, liars and thieves, bigotry and hatred. For your information, Gandhi was far more like Jesus than you, or any of your right-wing "Christian" colleagues will ever be. And, Larry, if Jesus were alive today, you and the rest of the "whitened sepulchers" would be first in line, clamoring for his execution.
Posted by jmusolino at 05/20/2008 @ 12:13am
I have a question to you LV. This is completely off topic but I have never gotten a sufficient answer. Why is it even though the lost Gospels can be dated back to around the same time as the other Gospels are they any less valid? The Gospel of Mary for instance. Why is it those are not considered to be apart of the Bible even though they too were written by followers of Jesus and why does the Church deny them so much?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/20/2008 @ 12:57am
what about my mom?
is she in hell?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008 @ 09:11am
Your seem to have an animosity towards those who want to practice their Christian faith as if the words in the Bible actually mean what they say.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/20/2008 | ignore this person
.
Actually, as a Christian, I have an animosity towards those who pervert His words and intentions. This you have done Larry, may times. I have seen you use the Word in defense of war, intolerance, and bigotry. Just a short while ago, you perverted the Word to justify your anti-Catholicism - a billion Christians! I have seen you on these pages defend torture at Gitmo, advocate for the denial of basic rights to individuals, defend intollerance, and more - and quoting scripture as your source. I have even seen your claim that dropping a few tactical nukes on China would have been a 'good' thing!
I have spent so much time talking to people about Jesus Christ, the meaning of His words and His life. And I can't even begin to count the number of times people counter by telling about all of the 'bad things' that people have done in the name of Christianity and religion. And it is not rational to deny their observations.
But, as I've often said to them in reply, it is not Christ or even religion that is to blame. Neither CREATES or even 'leads to' what they have observed. It is PRIDE and ARROGANCE that has lead to nearly all that they observed.
When discussing the life of Christ, I try to explain to people that, when we encounter people like you, the pride and arrogance they display when they claim authority to speak for Christ in defense of the indefensable, existed LONG before they discoverd Christ or religion. And, if you could somehow remove the religion from people like yourself, this pride and arrogance would remain in full force long after.
Here's a clue Larry...for all of your years of studying the bible, when you find yourself quoting scripture to defend wars and death and torture and injustice and intollerance...you AREN'T speaking for Christ.
You WEREN'T resurrected from the dead (twice) and if you had been, this WOULDN'T be what He would want you to be claiming are his words.
I'm tired of having to work so hard to try to draw people back to Christ, who have been repelled so far by your perversion of His message.
Posted by Lillian at 05/20/2008 @ 10:22am
LvLiberty-Saying that his name was Yeshua is a good guess,but that's all it is.You have no clue as to what his name was and can only make guesses.You always forget that the teachings of Jesus are very much incomplete and open to interpretation which is why there so many vastly different views about this person within Christianity..According to the book of Mark Jesus went to heaven and sat at the right hand of God which shows separation from God and that he was not God in the flesh,but other verses suggest that He was God in the flesh so no one really knows who exactly He was.He prayed for the Father to not forsake Him and God can't forsake God.You arrive at the conclusions that you arrive at by picking out verses here and there,but there are other verses that contradict your conclusions so you ignore those verses.Did Jesus ever give a complete teaching where he flat out said that I am God in the flesh and these are the only two ways that you can get into heaven?No,he did not.Jesus could have taught everything that is in the Gospels in a few days which leaves almost three years worth of teachings that are missing and that is a very relevant fact.It is simply impossible for you to arrive at the conclusions that you arrive at based on the small amount of information that is provided.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2008 @ 11:06am
LvLiberty-The correct answer to Masks question about where Ghandi is spending his afterlife is that you have no clue because Jesus taught that you don't judge or condemn others and you would never be so arrogant as to do so.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2008 @ 11:40am
If I tell you that there is a stop sign ahead and that a failure to stop will cause you to violate the law and that I know that there is a police officer I just saw by the stop sign. Am I judging or just citing a warning about the facts I have at hand?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/20/2008 | ignore this person | warn it
.
Interesting analogy. Let's extend it just a bit so that it actually fits with our observation here at The Nation.
You aren't someone just pointing out a stop sign. You are the officer...and a self-appointed one at that. And, in your zeal to 'enforce the law' you've progressed beyond just writing tickets to those who fail to stop. Like the rural cop who is convinced all 'kids' are out to make trouble or the LA cop who pulls over young black men who drive fancy cars, you now quote your 'experience' as justification as you pursue those ('liberals' and 'leftists') whom you are convinced are up to no good, and pre-emptively pull them over (pass judgement) to shake them down. Why?
Because you consider yourself to be an expert on 'the law' and how to enforce it.
Posted by Lillian at 05/20/2008 @ 12:49pm
A janitor, Francis Iron-7 Hooligan, stored the piece of pipe atop the dead cabinet, rested his lunchpail there, too, for the moment He heard voices from the pipe.
He fetched the scientist whose apparatus this had been, Dr. Felix Bauxite-13 von Peterswald. But the pipe refused to talk again.
Dr. von Peterswald demonstrated that he was a great scientist, however, with his willingness to believe the ignorant Mr. Hooligan. He made the janitor go over his story again and again.
"The lunchpail," he said at last "Where is your lunchpail?" Hooligan had it in his hand. Dr. von Peterswald instructed him to place it in relation to the pipe exactly as it had been before. The pipe began promptly to talk again.
The talkers identified themselves as persons in the afterlife. They were backed by a demoralized chorus of persons who complained to each other of tedium and social slights and minor ailments, and so on.
As Dr. von Peterswald said in his secret diary: "It sounded like nothing so much as the other end of a telephone call on a rainy autumn day -- to a badly run turkey farm."
Hi ho.
k. vonnegut
-- k. vonnegut.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008 @ 12:51pm
If I tell you that there is a stop sign ahead and that a failure to stop will cause you to violate the law and that I know that there is a police officer I just saw by the stop sign. Am I judging or just citing a warning about the facts I have at hand?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/20/2008 | ignore this person | warn it
.
You know, that got me to thinking about something that happened several months ago, last fall, just as school was about to start back up.
At a meeting of one of the elementary school foundation boards on which I sit, we were discussing the impending school startup and the fact that the traffic seemed to be getting so much more rushed and congested. We were concerned about the potential for a disaster when the kids started streaming back to classes.
One of the parents pointed out the stop sign at the intersection and, complaining that people regularly practiced the infamous 'hollywood stop' there, suggested that we should get the local cops to hang out there for awhile.
After much discussion, we hit on a slightly different solution. For the first week or two, a small group would get together each morning, plot out some quick logistics and strategy, then disperse to a few strategic spots around the two blocks or so before the intersection where the school was. Then, as the kids came streaming in to school, we would spend the morning smiling at, and waving to, our neighbors who were driving by in their cars. When we'd catch their eye, most would wave back, and then we'd then give them the 'hands extended, open palms down, pushing downward' gesture that universally means 'slow down'. To the few that answered back with a 'what do you mean' look on their faces, all we had to do was point at the kids. They got it.
I suppose we could have sic'ed the cops on them. But our approach sure seemed like the more 'Christian' thing to do.
Posted by Lillian at 05/20/2008 @ 1:04pm
is my mom in hell?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008 @ 3:37pm
nobody seems to mock dr. king for having been a pastor..........
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008 @ 3:38pm
"religion is bunk" -- mom
is mom in hell?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2008 @ 3:41pm
LvLiberty-Your belief that you are giving us Gods counsel is your belief and is rather arrogant and not the belief of many of us and the fact that you believe it does mean that others should automatically believe it,also.That's giving one human too much authority...You have an opinion about God,Jesus,and the Gospels,but your opinion is no more valid than any other persons.As has been shown by other verses that you chose to ignore,the Gospels give different views and the fact that people pointed that out does not make people unbelievers who are mocking you.It just means that things can be interpreted in different ways.Your latest verses have no relevance to this discussion since your opinions of events that happened two thousand years ago are based on little information and you are very far removed from those times and that place.You only have a handful of teachings of Jesus that say different things because you don't have most of what He taught.Pointing that out does not make me an unbeliever that is mocking you.It is not your beliefs that people mock.It is your arrogance.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2008 @ 3:51pm
LvLiberty-A creator can't judge it's creation.A creator can only judge themselves and their ability to create.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2008 @ 4:06pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/20/2008 | ignore this person | warn it
This one was absolutely priceless!!!
In response to people telling him he is prideful and arrogant...
...Larry responds by comparing himself to the Apostle Paul and Jesus Christ!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by Lillian at 05/21/2008 @ 11:29pm