SAN FRANCISCO — No sooner had California's Legislature become the nation's first to approve a gay-marriage bill than reality sunk in: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday that he will veto it.

Schwarzenegger said the legislation approved Tuesday would conflict with Proposition 22. That ballot initiative, approved five years ago, prevents the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote," his press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto" the bill.

Schwarzenegger "believes gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship," the statement said. "He is proud that California provides the most rigorous protections in the nation for domestic partners."

story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-07-gay-marriage_x.htm?csp=34)

I support gay marriage...and I don't like Arnold....

but this time he's right.

Good for him. I'm glad he's doing something right.

there is no such thing as gay marriage

not even in california

Well, he also said that there are court cases pending in the CA judicial system right now, and that he wanted the matter to be settled in the courts or on the ballot, not by the legislature.

I can understand the point he's making, but the legislature is an elected representation of the state's populace, and I'm not sure that he took that into account when he made that statement.

Either way, I wonder what will become of the court cases, or what will appear on the ballot next time around.

Personally, I think that the argument against gay marriage is pathetically weak from a legal standpoint.

Personally, I think that the argument against gay marriage is pathetically weak from a legal standpoint.

In a nation that holds individual rights paramount, I can agree with this statement completely and without reservation. :)

Well, he also said that there are court cases pending in the CA judicial system right now, and that he wanted the matter to be settled in the courts or on the ballot, not by the legislature.

I can understand the point he's making, but the legislature is an elected representation of the state's populace, and I'm not sure that he took that into account when he made that statement.

Either way, I wonder what will become of the court cases, or what will appear on the ballot next time around.

Arnie is centerline if you ask me. I went back to CA a while back and saw a lot of anti-Arnold billboards and stuff. He sure is popular. :|

It's banned because Americans are backward hicks that try to bring back slavery and ban women from working outside the house.

^ your ignorance is showing.

but you win the award for most ludicrous post of the day, and that's not easy to do with the stiff competition around here! congrats! :nice:

Play nice, Cindy.

sorry. :o

It's banned because Americans are backward hicks that try to bring back slavery and ban women from working outside the house.

Hey! Only 51% of us are that way! :mad:

I support gay marriage...and I don't like Arnold....

but this time he's right.
Arnold is a hypocrite. That guy got laid more than any person in history. Yet he is going around telling people how to live their lives. He should have kept making stupid action flicks and stayed out of politics.

The voters have spoken, dude. They voted not to allow it and he's right, the legislature shouldn't circumvent that.

I'm so torn on this issue.

Should gays be allowed to marry? I can't just follow the liberal line on this one, I really can't. I'm not saying I don't think that gays shouldn't be afforded total legal protection in domestic partnerships (legally binding pre-nups, "divorce" rights, adoption, all that stuff) but should they be allowed to MARRY? The more I think of it, the more the government shouldn't recognize marriages. We should recognize civil unions between 2 people through a legally binding contract, regardless of their sex or orientation. We should leave the entire idea of marriage to the churches and society. Does that make any sense?

RR has picked the winner: government has no business even being involved in marriage, which is a spiritual concept to begin with. It should be civil unions across the board, from a legal standpoint. If people wanna get married, go to a church.

The point is that the government DOES decide who can marry, and by refusing to allow gay people to you are discriminating against them. And wasn't that the same argument used by those who wanted to keep slaves? That the government has no right involving itself in that area?

Hugs

lilnymph

But we live in a democracy (ostensibly).

Unfortunately, the people don't want to allow it. I don't agree, but there it is.

And comparing it to slavery is bad form, to say the least.

But we live in a democracy (ostensibly).

Unfortunately, the people don't want to allow it. I don't agree, but there it is.

And comparing it to slavery is bad form, to say the least.

So if the majority of the people want to keep slaves then you would agree that should be allowed? If people decided those under the age of 30 couldn't marry, or show any signs of affection in public, you would be fully, 100% behind them all the way?

And what I am I allowed to compare it with? I never said it was as bad as slavery, merely that the same argument was used.

Hugs

lilnymph

I'm so torn on this issue.

Should gays be allowed to marry? I can't just follow the liberal line on this one, I really can't. I'm not saying I don't think that gays shouldn't be afforded total legal protection in domestic partnerships (legally binding pre-nups, "divorce" rights, adoption, all that stuff) but should they be allowed to MARRY? The more I think of it, the more the government shouldn't recognize marriages. We should recognize civil unions between 2 people through a legally binding contract, regardless of their sex or orientation. We should leave the entire idea of marriage to the churches and society. Does that make any sense?
Yes

RR has picked the winner: government has no business even being involved in marriage, which is a spiritual concept to begin with. It should be civil unions across the board, from a legal standpoint. If people wanna get married, go to a church.
Yes

The point is that the government DOES decide who can marry, and by refusing to allow gay people to you are discriminating against them. And wasn't that the same argument used by those who wanted to keep slaves? That the government has no right involving itself in that area?

Hugs

lilnymph
And yes.

These are all very sensible points and I agree.

So if the majority of the people want to keep slaves then you would agree that should be allowed? If people decided those under the age of 30 couldn't marry, or show any signs of affection in public, you would be fully, 100% behind them all the way?

And what I am I allowed to compare it with? I never said it was as bad as slavery, merely that the same argument was used.

Hugs

lilnymph

No, the pro-slavery argument was that blacks weren't really people and thus had no rights whatsoever. Claiming that homosexual couples cannot sustain a viable family unit- which is ostensibly the societal function of marriage- and therefore should not have the legal 'privilege' of marriage isn't the same thing at all.

The GOP's been screaming for over two years that this should be settled in the legislatures, not the courts. Now a legislature settles it, and they're going to veto it.

...government has no business even being involved in marriage, which is a spiritual concept to begin with. It should be civil unions across the board, from a legal standpoint. If people wanna get married, go to a church.
:stupid:
The government has no business sanctioning marriage

Uh huh. And how do you propose we resolve child custody and property issues, because we know that irreconcilable disagreements NEVER arise, do they?

Uh huh. And how do you propose we resolve child custody and property issues, because we know that irreconcilable disagreements NEVER arise, do they?

Contract law. You don't have to marry your landlord in order to have a day in court if he doesn't patch your roof, do you?

If the act of marriage is a contract, then you have government sanction of marriage. It's all the same ****.

And, of course, you don't have children with your landlord, so different standards must apply.

If the act of marriage is a contract, then you have government sanction of marriage.


No, you don't. You don't need to get a license every time you sign a contract, do you? If I decide to rent you my coffee cup for the day, and charge you a buck, do we have to go to the clerk of court and apply for the right to engage in that contract? No, not at all.

Why should marriage be any different?

I don't think custody is generally brought up in marriages . . . just in divorces.

You seem to misunderstand my post: whether you have to get a license or not, if marriage is seen as an implied contract, you have government sanction of marriage.

For the contract to be valid, some legal standard of what constitutes a marriage will have to be implemented, and, of course, only those people will be "married" for such purposes as can enter into a legal contract.

And custody is an issue not only in divorce, but in both marriages and non-marriages as well.

"The voters have spoken, dude. They voted not to allow it and he's right, the legislature shouldn't circumvent that."

I agree, although I believe this is an issue the voters will slowly come around to.

Since the CA Supreme Court will probably overturn the ballot initiative, that's most likely irrelevant.

There's one other way to solve the GAY MARRIAGE issue that I haven't seen mentioned. And that is, why don't we abolish marriage.
Marriage, in its modern form, is derived from property law. Specifically, it is derived from property law as it applied when women and children were considered property. This may not be our legal definition of marriage today, but our legal definition is influenced by its historical roots.
So, let's just abolish marriage completely. If nobody can get married, including gays, then nobody has a reason to complain about fairness.

Unrealistic.

Cowpunk, are you understanding what some of us are saying? We're saying that marriage between 2 straight adults is falsely recognized by the government. That what should be recognized is only the legal part of marriage, of which there is. You know, the entire getting a marriage license, tax benefits, that stuff.

If we stripped it down to the core of the matter that the government needs to get involved with, we can simply be rid of marriage as a legal institution, since it really is a religious/cultural thing in the first place.

And yeah, lil, I'm of the mindset that this is a fundamentally different problem facing society than those of race, at least those problems of slavery. This isn't just breaking societal norms, I mean when you look at the broad scope of things, these are mores you're messing with. You know that I'm not hating on gays, I'm just calling it like I see it. What gays engage in is so far out of the "regular" for most that they don't want to allow it, or even admit it exists. I'm sure that with time this will generally abate, but I doubt it will ever go away in any society as a whole.

Me, personally, I don't get it. But hell, I don't get hockey either. Just because I personally don't agree with it does not give me the right to deny you the ability to do what you want, as long as you're not harming me. I think the argument is that gay marriages would harm society's values and moral core.

OH, and going back to the original topic of this thread, Arnold has been very consistent in protecting what the people vote. Regardless of his views on gay marriage, I don't think this is simply political maneuvering, I think he really believes this is an issue that must be decided by the PEOPLE, and I agree.

The GOP's been screaming for over two years that this should be settled in the legislatures, not the courts. Now a legislature settles it, and they're going to veto it.


The Legislature isn't listening to the People in their districts, and Ah-Nald is protecting the People. There will not be any Girly Men in Ca-lee-for-ne if Ah-Nald has his say! :nice:

Cowpunk, are you understanding what some of us are saying? We're saying that marriage between 2 straight adults is falsely recognized by the government. That what should be recognized is only the legal part of marriage, of which there is. You know, the entire getting a marriage license, tax benefits, that stuff.
- It's difficult to parse this bit, so perhaps you could transliterate for me.

If we stripped it down to the core of the matter that the government needs to get involved with, we can simply be rid of marriage as a legal institution, since it really is a religious/cultural thing in the first place.
- Then, again, exactly how do you propose we resolve property and custody disputes which the parties can't reconcile? A cage match?

There IS a fundamental public interest there.

And yeah, lil, I'm of the mindset that this is a fundamentally different problem facing society than those of race, at least those problems of slavery. This isn't just breaking societal norms, I mean when you look at the broad scope of things, these are mores you're messing with. You know that I'm not hating on gays, I'm just calling it like I see it. What gays engage in is so far out of the "regular" for most that they don't want to allow it, or even admit it exists. I'm sure that with time this will generally abate, but I doubt it will ever go away in any society as a whole.
- Bunk - they do okay in Canada and Scandanavia. And considering the number of people that have homosexual affairs at least once in their lives according to Masters and Johnson, it's hard to believe it's THAT out of the normal range.

Me, personally, I don't get it. But hell, I don't get hockey either. Just because I personally don't agree with it does not give me the right to deny you the ability to do what you want, as long as you're not harming me. I think the argument is that gay marriages would harm society's values and moral core.
- By doing what?

OH, and going back to the original topic of this thread, Arnold has been very consistent in protecting what the people vote. Regardless of his views on gay marriage, I don't think this is simply political maneuvering, I think he really believes this is an issue that must be decided by the PEOPLE, and I agree.
- It WAS decided by "the people," and now it will be decided by the courts.

Then, again, exactly how do you propose we resolve property and custody disputes which the parties can't reconcile? A cage match?

There IS a fundamental public interest there.

OK, I think that I didn't quite make clear what I want to happen.
Straight male and straight female (both, let's say Catholic) fall in love, find compatibility, and decide to make a commitment to each other and start a family. They 1. go to their church and say, "We're getting married father! Let's get our groove on!" and plan out their wedding and marriage through their church. Then 2. they go to the local government office and say "We're going to enter into a legally binding contract that affords us legal benefits Mr. Government Man! Let's get our contract on!" and then go to their CPA and lawyer and have a contract written out stating what becomes of their economic assets and such and such, or they just follow the prescribed standard as it is already set. 3. They go through their religious ceremony, their society accepts them as married. 4. They get their marriage license, and the government accepts them as legally in a civil union. End of story. Is that clearer?


Bunk - they do okay in Canada and Scandanavia. And considering the number of people that have homosexual affairs at least once in their lives according to Masters and Johnson, it's hard to believe it's THAT out of the normal range.

They also have socialism there. Government healthcare, 50% income tax, that kind of stuff. And Masters and Johnson? I personally think that a lot of their research is not quite all there, that's just me.

Different cultures and different societies. I'm not arguing the "Eternal Truth" of homosexuality, nor do I care to, and if I was forced to I'd say that there is never an eternal truth and at the end of the day its simply a guy plugging another guy where the sun don't shine, or a girl having to deal with hairs in her teeth (nasty, that's why I prefer shaved). I'm talking about here in the US and other countries where it is not socially acceptable. i'm talking norms and mores, which are societal standards. I didn't even get into the taboo area, which I don't think homosexuality can fall into anyhow.


It WAS decided by "the people," and now it will be decided by the courts.

Yes, it was decided by the people to not allow it.

OK, I think that I didn't quite make clear what I want to happen.
Straight male and straight female (both, let's say Catholic) fall in love, find compatibility, and decide to make a commitment to each other and start a family. They 1. go to their church and say, "We're getting married father! Let's get our groove on!" and plan out their wedding and marriage through their church. Then 2. they go to the local government office and say "We're going to enter into a legally binding contract that affords us legal benefits Mr. Government Man! Let's get our contract on!" and then go to their CPA and lawyer and have a contract written out stating what becomes of their economic assets and such and such, or they just follow the prescribed standard as it is already set. 3. They go through their religious ceremony, their society accepts them as married. 4. They get their marriage license, and the government accepts them as legally in a civil union. End of story. Is that clearer?
- Why should the religious have a right to marry the unreligious don't? Besides, that contract is still a "government sanction of marriage" despite the elimination of civil marriage.

They also have socialism there. Government healthcare, 50% income tax, that kind of stuff.
- Canada? Hardly.

And Masters and Johnson? I personally think that a lot of their research is not quite all there, that's just me.
- On what basis do you make this statement? Personal prejudice? A lot more people sexually experiment with their own gender than you think.

Different cultures and different societies. I'm not arguing the "Eternal Truth" of homosexuality, nor do I care to, and if I was forced to I'd say that there is never an eternal truth and at the end of the day its simply a guy plugging another guy where the sun don't shine, or a girl having to deal with hairs in her teeth (nasty, that's why I prefer shaved). I'm talking about here in the US and other countries where it is not socially acceptable. i'm talking norms and mores, which are societal standards. I didn't even get into the taboo area, which I don't think homosexuality can fall into anyhow.
- Social standards which violate rights are untenable in the US, as we found out during the Civil Rights era, and marriage is a right.

Yes, it was decided by the people to not allow it.
- "The people" is usually the legislature, and now the courts will undo the voters' nonsense.

Yes, it was decided by the people to not allow it.

"The people" don't get to do whatever they want to a minority simply because they constitute 50% plus one. Some laws they would like to impose are illegitimate, and denying a minority (when said minority fund via taxes the same ostensibly-"equal-protection-under-the-law"-totin' government that the majority do) the 1200+ rights marriage entails is one of those illegitimate laws.

"The people" don't get to do whatever they want to a minority simply because they constitute 50% plus one. Some laws they would like to impose are illegitimate, and denying a minority (when said minority fund via taxes the same ostensibly-"equal-protection-under-the-law"-totin' government that the majority do) the 1200+ rights marriage entails is one of those illegitimate laws.

See, that's the thing. As much as I'd like to think otherwise, I think that the reality in our democracy (to an EXTENT) is that 50% plus 1 is right. Yes, illegitimate by whose standards? This has totally taken a weird philosophical turn, and I was just trying to keep it in a social context. :(

- Why should the religious have a right to marry the unreligious don't? Besides, that contract is still a "government sanction of marriage" despite the elimination of civil marriage.

So I guess I made my point clear to you at least, right? And why should the religious have a right to marry? Because that's in their religion! ARGH.... Like, why can't you be buried in a Catholic graveyard if you haven't been baptized? Because that's in their religion! You've missed my point, I'm saying that the government should not sanction marriage, how was that not clear? I'm saying that there should be a separation of the societal/religious idea of marriage and the legal, government-recognized aspects of it.


On what basis do you make this statement? Personal prejudice? A lot more people sexually experiment with their own gender than you think.

You can't say it like that, man. Personal prejudice? You're implying that because I don't see NEARLY that much homosexual activity in my surroundings that its because I don't want to see it. How can you imply that I'm somehow anti-gay? That's not a personal attack, but it kind of hurts, honestly. I thought I was just arguing a certain side of the issue, and now I feel like I'm being demonized for saying, in what I felt was a rational manner, what I believed. And I said it in my quote! "I personally think that a lot of their research is not quite all there, that's just me." I'm allowed an opinion when I state it as an opinion, which I think I thoroughly did. And plus its because of a little background digging into how their carried out their research, not just simply because I disagree with their findings on a personal level.


Social standards which violate rights are untenable in the US, as we found out during the Civil Rights era, and marriage is a right.


- "The people" is usually the legislature, and now the courts will undo the voters' nonsense.

To refer to any action that the voters take as nonsense is UNdemocratic. Simply because you disagree with the majority on an issue does not mean its nonsense. I know I fall into this all of the time, and now I'm starting to play devil's advocate a little (a lot) but yeah, the voters had this issue right in front of them on a ballot, and they said no. In the purest form of democracy, DIRECT democracy through a legal vote they said no. I'm not saying that simply because of a "no" vote no more effort should be made to change the status quo, but I think that effort must first be made to sufficiently change public opinion before any elected body tries to actively go against the will of the people.

Is what I said a possible justification for slavery in our past? Yes, you can look at it that way. Does the fact that a wrong was committed in the past using my desired logic make me want to immediately back off of my stance because of that fact? No. I'm sorry, but like I said this has gotten a lot more philosophical than I thought it was going to be. So yes, philosophically when a democracy votes something a certain way, then that is the way it is in my mind.

I feel like I'm being demonized for saying, in what I felt was a rational manner, what I believed.

Just as a point of order, I don't demonize you in my head at all. I doubt CP does either. You've done a good job of playing devil's advocate, I think, and expressing your logic.

See, that's the thing. As much as I'd like to think otherwise, I think that the reality in our democracy (to an EXTENT) is that 50% plus 1 is right. Yes, illegitimate by whose standards? This has totally taken a weird philosophical turn, and I was just trying to keep it in a social context. :(

I'm somewhat alone in being very liberal and at the same time a moral absolutist. It's absolutely immoral to commit some acts. Slavery is one that 50% plus one approved of at one time. Discriminatory practices such as denial of gay marriage are others. It's illegitimate to use the force of the state to take taxes A, B, and C from all citizens and afford rights X, Y, and Z to some and just X and Y to others, especially in the name of a non-universal (among said citizens) religion, with no true demonstrative state interest.

Edited to add: And given the illegitmate nature of some laws that 50% plus one people would often like to enact, I can't bring myself to care how those laws are struck down--be it the legislature, judicial activism, or de facto non-implementation. However they are, I applaud it.

Just as a point of order, I don't demonize you in my head at all. I doubt CP does either. You've done a good job of playing devil's advocate, I think, and expressing your logic.



I'm somewhat alone in being very liberal and at the same time a moral absolutist. It's absolutely immoral to commit some acts. Slavery is one that 50% plus one approved of at one time. Discriminatory practices such as denial of gay marriage are others. It's illegitimate to use the force of the state to take taxes A, B, and C from all citizens and afford rights X, Y, and Z to some and just X and Y to others, especially in the name of a non-universal (among said citizens) religion, with no true demonstrative state interest.

Edited to add: And given the illegitmate nature of some laws that 50% plus one people would often like to enact, I can't bring myself to care how those laws are struck down--be it the legislature, judicial activism, or de facto non-implementation. However they are, I applaud it.

Thanks, yeah. I know you guys aren't after me with a kitchen-knife, but it was getting a tad heated there, at least I felt.

Long, long ago in my high school youth I was as liberal as you come across now. The thing is, I don't think I've lost my sense of being a social liberal. I think that its simply been refined to cut through all the Democratic Party BS liberalism. I used to stick to the party line and agree with what they said. On further examination, I found I was left-wing pretending to be extrememly left-wing.

Like, what you said about however they are struck down doesn't fly with me on some days, and makes sense on others. This happens to be one of those days where (since you guys got me in a philosophical conundrum) I don't think its right. As a society, there must be a process. If we don't think that process is correct, then why do we have it in place? Simply for the times it works it expedites the procedures of acceptance? That doesn't seem right to me.

I think that's what I'm arguing. Not against gay marriage, but for the proper procedural steps in making it so. Not because I'm a bureaucrat, but because it'll be better historically. Until you change public opinion, gays will never be equal. I'm saying, "let's change public opinion, but its a lengthy painful process" before we jump into the entire judicial/legislative thing.

Look, slavery was ended in southern states by the emancipation proc. But they were left without rights. So the 13, 14, and 15 amendments. Yet still Happersett v. Miner allowed states to enact black codes and jim crow laws to deny blacks voting priviledges and social status. Not until the civil rights movement of the '60s was black rights truly advanced in a real-world sense, and that was because of a massive shift in PUBLIC OPINION. right?

So yeah, I'm saying that this is a battle that needs to be fought, but in the right order. We don't need fights in the legislature or to stop Arnold from vetoing the bill, we need more Will and Grace on TV. We need to see real gay people who aren't fashion designers or overtly feminine so that gays gain status as normal. Do you realize how deep some of the inroads of the gay movement reach right now? Of course the next step is legislation protecting their rights, but let's not ram it down the throat of an unready America.

Edit: Now is it clear how my thought process has arrived at allowing civil unions between consenting adults regardless of orientation? And allowing for marriages to be handled and recognized exclusively by the church and society? Marriage is simply a ritual idea for union. Gays must accept the fact that some rituals will not be open to them, the exact same as how some rituals will not be open to Jews (christmas), or Asians (hey, try being Asian at spring break in Mexico and tell me if I'm lying here). Of course they can have their own marriages and ceremonies, just hire a wedding planner!

No matter how much a minority wants to be fully integrated into the mainstream, which remains WASP here in the US, its just not going to fully happen. You must make them bend towards you as much as you bend towards them. All we can seek is a happy middle.

So I guess I made my point clear to you at least, right? And why should the religious have a right to marry? Because that's in their religion! ARGH.... Like, why can't you be buried in a Catholic graveyard if you haven't been baptized? Because that's in their religion! You've missed my point, I'm saying that the government should not sanction marriage, how was that not clear? I'm saying that there should be a separation of the societal/religious idea of marriage and the legal, government-recognized aspects of it.
- Irrelevant: you still cannot grant a right to the religious that you don't to the non-religious, and the right to enter such a contract is still a right.

You can't say it like that, man. Personal prejudice? You're implying that because I don't see NEARLY that much homosexual activity in my surroundings that its because I don't want to see it. How can you imply that I'm somehow anti-gay? That's not a personal attack, but it kind of hurts, honestly. I thought I was just arguing a certain side of the issue, and now I feel like I'm being demonized for saying, in what I felt was a rational manner, what I believed.
- Personal prejudice doesn't always mean "hate": it's anything that interferes with a rational decision. That could simply be the halo effect as much as it could be homophobia.

And since you don't have any way of observing what people have done in their lives, making a judgement on that basis can't be rational.

And I said it in my quote! "I personally think that a lot of their research is not quite all there, that's just me." I'm allowed an opinion when I state it as an opinion, which I think I thoroughly did. And plus its because of a little background digging into how their carried out their research, not just simply because I disagree with their findings on a personal level.
- What background digging did you do that furnished you with that result?

To refer to any action that the voters take as nonsense is UNdemocratic.
- That's false: the voters don't have the democratic right to enact legislation that defies the Constitution any more than Congress does.

In the purest form of democracy, DIRECT democracy through a legal vote they said no. I'm not saying that simply because of a "no" vote no more effort should be made to change the status quo, but I think that effort must first be made to sufficiently change public opinion before any elected body tries to actively go against the will of the people.
- No, because democracy isn't the tyranny of the majority.

Is what I said a possible justification for slavery in our past? Yes, you can look at it that way. Does the fact that a wrong was committed in the past using my desired logic make me want to immediately back off of my stance because of that fact? No. I'm sorry, but like I said this has gotten a lot more philosophical than I thought it was going to be. So yes, philosophically when a democracy votes something a certain way, then that is the way it is in my mind.
- Human rights are inalienable whether the majority likes it or not in the US of A.

Thanks, yeah. I know you guys aren't after me with a kitchen-knife, but it was getting a tad heated there, at least I felt.

Long, long ago in my high school youth I was as liberal as you come across now. The thing is, I don't think I've lost my sense of being a social liberal. I think that its simply been refined to cut through all the Democratic Party BS liberalism. I used to stick to the party line and agree with what they said. On further examination, I found I was left-wing pretending to be extrememly left-wing.

Like, what you said about however they are struck down doesn't fly with me on some days, and makes sense on others. This happens to be one of those days where (since you guys got me in a philosophical conundrum) I don't think its right. As a society, there must be a process. If we don't think that process is correct, then why do we have it in place? Simply for the times it works it expedites the procedures of acceptance? That doesn't seem right to me.

I think that's what I'm arguing. Not against gay marriage, but for the proper procedural steps in making it so. Not because I'm a bureaucrat, but because it'll be better historically. Until you change public opinion, gays will never be equal. I'm saying, "let's change public opinion, but its a lengthy painful process" before we jump into the entire judicial/legislative thing.

Look, slavery was ended in southern states by the emancipation proc. But they were left without rights. So the 13, 14, and 15 amendments. Yet still Happersett v. Miner allowed states to enact black codes and jim crow laws to deny blacks voting priviledges and social status. Not until the civil rights movement of the '60s was black rights truly advanced in a real-world sense, and that was because of a massive shift in PUBLIC OPINION. right?

So yeah, I'm saying that this is a battle that needs to be fought, but in the right order. We don't need fights in the legislature or to stop Arnold from vetoing the bill, we need more Will and Grace on TV. We need to see real gay people who aren't fashion designers or overtly feminine so that gays gain status as normal. Do you realize how deep some of the inroads of the gay movement reach right now? Of course the next step is legislation protecting their rights, but let's not ram it down the throat of an unready America.

Edit: Now is it clear how my thought process has arrived at allowing civil unions between consenting adults regardless of orientation? And allowing for marriages to be handled and recognized exclusively by the church and society? Marriage is simply a ritual idea for union. Gays must accept the fact that some rituals will not be open to them, the exact same as how some rituals will not be open to Jews (christmas), or Asians (hey, try being Asian at spring break in Mexico and tell me if I'm lying here). Of course they can have their own marriages and ceremonies, just hire a wedding planner!

No matter how much a minority wants to be fully integrated into the mainstream, which remains WASP here in the US, its just not going to fully happen. You must make them bend towards you as much as you bend towards them. All we can seek is a happy middle.

Big :nice: on not toeing the party line. It's tough to convey the spectrum of opinions on a message board, but I'm certainly no Dem sheep, either. I'm anti-abortion until someone can explain to me the logic of why an embryo/fetus isn't a person; I'm willing to be a lot more blunt and coarse and utilitarian than a typical Dem, and ready willing and eager to call them on their bullsh*t. Be that as it may, I'm still quite liberal over the scope of most issues.

For me, I don't give two sh*ts about what anyone wants to think of me being gay. I don't care to change minds about whether people think it's "wrong" at all. Zero interest. The only thing I'm interested is the legal recognition.

It pains me to think that if I ever do get so lucky as to find a great guy to share love with, our relationship could be strained by factors that the vast majority of people never even have to consider for their own lives. (If he's in college, will he be able to be classified as a resident in my home state thanks to our relationship like straight people? If I'm in some sort of accident the day after I come out to my dad, who will be quite pissed, will my freaked out angry dad make life-or-death decisions about me in the hospital, rather than the man to whom I entrust to always look after my best interest?)

A world in which the citizens hold negative feelings about a relationship that nonetheless enjoys legal rights can exist. There's a lot of stuff I wish people wouldn't do, but the difference between the stuff I don't like and the stuff I don't like plus should be illegal is that the latter involve unwilling participants. The former are conducted between consenting adults. It's frustrating that so many people don't seem to devise any position in that vein and view a referendum, for example, more as a poll of "Do you like _____?"

Anyway, I'm rambling. But that legal stuff? I don't care how it comes about: legislature, courts, whatever. I can't. I feel too desperate. And I feel even more desperate for people who are farther along in life than me. I'm confident I'll see marriage rights when I'm still relatively young. The writing is on the wall, but there are gay people further along in life who are approaching a lot of the more serious situations that pertain to marriage benefits that are just getting the shaft because they were born one, two decades too early. It's just too tragic to me to place more importance on strict adherence to a process than on the justice in the outcome.

- Irrelevant: you still cannot grant a right to the religious that you don't to the non-religious, and the right to enter such a contract is still a right.

OK, now I think you're arguing with me for the sake of argument. Nobody has granted rights to the religious, they simply are. No one ever said "Hey, Christians, you get Christmas. You Jews over there get the Bar-Mitzvahs and you Muslims get to not eat for a long time." I'm arguing that marriage as we view it today (well, not quite today, because its very much changing in the last few decades with secularism) is a religious status that has been socially and legally accepted. So, we take away the government acceptance of marriage. How can I make it any clearer? No one's granting a right to them, they're exercising their religion. If a church or denomination finds that they will allow gays to marry then that's perfectly fine. If gays start their own religion in this fantasy world of mine that allows them to get married that's also perfectly fine. How can we tell any church what and what not to do?

Personal prejudice doesn't always mean "hate": it's anything that interferes with a rational decision. That could simply be the halo effect as much as it could be homophobia.

And since you don't have any way of observing what people have done in their lives, making a judgement on that basis can't be rational.

What background digging did you do that furnished you with that result?

On one level, I agree with you. My basis for judgment on this is unscientific, and relies on the ever-unreliable "common sense" of what I see. But come on, now. Not every decision I make needs experimental research for me to believe in it. I obviously have ways of observing people and what they have done. How could I not? I'm not claiming on knowing every personal fact of people's lives, but hey, who does? I find that my findings on this were reached in a completely rational manner. I can't remember clearly now, I read up on their research years ago now, back in high school. But, am I not allowed to dispute the findings of their research? What I can tell you is that when I was looking at how they did their studies I distinctly remember thinking some things were odd, I really can't defend myself further.


That's false: the voters don't have the democratic right to enact legislation that defies the Constitution any more than Congress does.


- No, because democracy isn't the tyranny of the majority.


- Human rights are inalienable whether the majority likes it or not in the US of A.

OK, this is all you vs. me opinion stuff. I'd love to, LOVE to discuss these things with you further, but by this point we've so far outgrown the scope of this thread (and my brain hurts, too, you really made me think, clarify my position in my own head, kudos) that I think we should leave that for another thread.

Anyhow, I don't know how much I've given you to chew on, but you and openly-gay lategreat and nymph have really made me think a lot about this. And its been oh-so amazingly adult in tone! I didn't even realize we could go so long and maintain a non-******* status in this thread. I only hope that I have equally made you think and turn those wheels in your head.

And yeah, really. I don't think you're getting me on the entire marriage thing. I really don't know how I can make you understand what I'm saying, which I don't think is a matter of my opinion versus yours, but a matter of what is and what isn't. The application of that idea is definitely arguable, but the idea itself I don't see how it can be argued either way.

OK, now I think you're arguing with me for the sake of argument. Nobody has granted rights to the religious, they simply are. No one ever said "Hey, Christians, you get Christmas. You Jews over there get the Bar-Mitzvahs and you Muslims get to not eat for a long time." I'm arguing that marriage as we view it today (well, not quite today, because its very much changing in the last few decades with secularism) is a religious status that has been socially and legally accepted. So, we take away the government acceptance of marriage. How can I make it any clearer? No one's granting a right to them, they're exercising their religion. If a church or denomination finds that they will allow gays to marry then that's perfectly fine. If gays start their own religion in this fantasy world of mine that allows them to get married that's also perfectly fine. How can we tell any church what and what not to do?
- What exactly are you talking about? The government would be honoring a contract between two people because they are religious when they would not allow the non-religious to enter the same contract.

Non-religious people would still wish to marry, right? But under your scheme, they would only be able to enter into that civil contract if they could find a religious group to front for them.

On one level, I agree with you. My basis for judgment on this is unscientific, and relies on the ever-unreliable "common sense" of what I see. But come on, now. Not every decision I make needs experimental research for me to believe in it. I obviously have ways of observing people and what they have done. How could I not? I'm not claiming on knowing every personal fact of people's lives, but hey, who does? I find that my findings on this were reached in a completely rational manner.
- No, they weren't, because people do all kinds of things they don't tell you about, and you aren't accounting for it.

If you knew the truth, you'd be very surprised.

I can't remember clearly now, I read up on their research years ago now, back in high school. But, am I not allowed to dispute the findings of their research? What I can tell you is that when I was looking at how they did their studies I distinctly remember thinking some things were odd, I really can't defend myself further.
- If you're going to dispute their findings, you should really come up with some kind of rational argument for such.

Big :nice: on not toeing the party line. It's tough to convey the spectrum of opinions on a message board, but I'm certainly no Dem sheep, either. I'm anti-abortion until someone can explain to me the logic of why an embryo/fetus isn't a person; I'm willing to be a lot more blunt and coarse and utilitarian than a typical Dem, and ready willing and eager to call them on their bullsh*t. Be that as it may, I'm still quite liberal over the scope of most issues.

Well, just to throw a thought your way, when do you define life as starting? I mean, falling down the slippery slope of logical fallacies, you could argue that male masturbation is nearly an act of mass murder. But yeah, I feel you on what you're saying. Actually, I find myself more eager to strike down faulty arguments from people on the left, simply because I think it reflects poorly on me if I let arguments similar to mine but grounded on false principles to stand.

For me, I don't give two sh*ts about what anyone wants to think of me being gay. I don't care to change minds about whether people think it's "wrong" at all. Zero interest. The only thing I'm interested is the legal recognition.

It pains me to think that if I ever do get so lucky as to find a great guy to share love with, our relationship could be strained by factors that the vast majority of people never even have to consider for their own lives. (If he's in college, will he be able to be classified as a resident in my home state thanks to our relationship like straight people? If I'm in some sort of accident the day after I come out to my dad, who will be quite pissed, will my freaked out angry dad make life-or-death decisions about me in the hospital, rather than the man to whom I entrust to always look after my best interest?)

So you're ok with civil unions?

A world in which the citizens hold negative feelings about a relationship that nonetheless enjoys legal rights can exist. There's a lot of stuff I wish people wouldn't do, but the difference between the stuff I don't like and the stuff I don't like plus should be illegal is that the latter involve unwilling participants. The former are conducted between consenting adults. It's frustrating that so many people don't seem to devise any position in that vein and view a referendum, for example, more as a poll of "Do you like _____?"

Yes, but once again, I think this is more than just a battle for legal protection, but also one of social acceptance. Hand in hand.

Anyway, I'm rambling. But that legal stuff? I don't care how it comes about: legislature, courts, whatever. I can't. I feel too desperate. And I feel even more desperate for people who are farther along in life than me. I'm confident I'll see marriage rights when I'm still relatively young. The writing is on the wall, but there are gay people further along in life who are approaching a lot of the more serious situations that pertain to marriage benefits that are just getting the shaft because they were born one, two decades too early. It's just too tragic to me to place more importance on strict adherence to a process than on the justice in the outcome.

Sorry if I sounded so clinical about something that, in the end, doesn't directly affect me, while in all earnestness might define the future of your life. But yeah, I'm on your side. I wish that I could just wave a magic wand and make things "right" but.... There's nothing meaningful I can say but I can let you know that as far as tertiary relationships go, you seem alright to me.

Bump.

- What exactly are you talking about? The government would be honoring a contract between two people because they are religious when they would not allow the non-religious to enter the same contract.

Non-religious people would still wish to marry, right? But under your scheme, they would only be able to enter into that civil contract if they could find a religious group to front for them.


- No, they weren't, because people do all kinds of things they don't tell you about, and you aren't accounting for it.

If you knew the truth, you'd be very surprised.


- If you're going to dispute their findings, you should really come up with some kind of rational argument for such.


OK, first off, I thought I made it clear that I found reasons for disagreeing with them. A long time ago. I stick to my statement on that, and I'm not in the mood to rediscover why I felt that way in the first place. Like others have said to me, you gotta allow me an opinion, as much as you can't understand that opinion. I'm not saying their research is wrong, never suggested it, just that I don't fully accept it. One thing I do remember is that there was something funny about their personal relationship, either that one of them was gay or there was hanky-panky going on. Like I said, a long time ago. And like I said, you'd be surprised about some things that I know about my friends.


OK! MY SCHEME.....

Government recognizes civil unions, and ONLY civil unions. Marriage as an institution no longer exists in the vocabulary of the government. Any 2 consenting adults of the legal age can enter into a civil union. This civil union would have the legal protections and parameters of "the thing formerly known as marriage." Gay, Bi, Straight, doesn't matter, you are afforded legal protection.

Marriage now becomes a socio-religious thing. There would be no legal definition to marriage whatsoever. 2 chihuahuas could get married by the Church of the Holy Dogbone and no one would give 2 and a half ****s. It would obviously still be performed for most all civil unions, as it is so firmly ingrained (engrained? which way do you spell it?) in our culture, but it would have the same importance as a barmitzvah or graduation ceremony or ANY OTHER RITE OF PASSAGE. 2 gay people could get "married" by their car mechanic for all I care. I'm just allowing for the fact that marriages would still remain mostly in the domain of the church.

edit: what's "bump?"

CowPunk, I don't know why you're arguing with people who agree with you. I believe res-rice has already said he is in favor of gay "marriage", and I know that I am as well.

One way to possibly facilitate such a thing, since it clearly is not going to happen anytime soon through a democratic vote, is to replace the legal institution of "marriage" with "civil unions". Yes, you're really only changing the terminology, its a semantic thing, but it could affect people's opinions. Saying that marriage is a spiritual concept which the government does not need to be involved in will appeal to the small-government right AND the secular left. Everybody wins.

Its just one angle that might work, other than that I don't know what to tell you. Most straight people, even those liberal ones who support gay marriage, are not going to get up in arms about this issue. Antagonizing people and making absurd comparisons to slavery isn't helping you. Clearly this is a losing issue at the ballot box, even in the most liberal states. And as ridiculous as it seems, the right is taking a hard stand on this particular issue. You won't be able to ram it down people's throats through the courts, especially now that its clear that most voters, when it's time to pull the lever in the booth, do not support gay "marriage".

So lets just change the terms of the debate and remove the frame of reference which makes this such a ridiculously polarizing issue.

And I'm not being as cynical as it might seem: I still stand by my opinion that government really shouldn't be involved in "marriage", period.

ResidentRice, I think you have a great idea and I'm quite perplexed on why people insist on misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

Government recognizes civil unions, and ONLY civil unions. Marriage as an institution no longer exists in the vocabulary of the government. Any 2 consenting adults of the legal age can enter into a civil union. This civil union would have the legal protections and parameters of "the thing formerly known as marriage." Gay, Bi, Straight, doesn't matter, you are afforded legal protection.
- Is that policy shift really any different than government sanction of marriage, other than simply not calling it marriage?

edit: what's "bump?"
- i.e., I didn't want to have to keep checking back to see whether you'd answered my post or not. :)

CowPunk, I don't know why you're arguing with people who agree with you. I believe res-rice has already said he is in favor of gay "marriage", and I know that I am as well.
- It sounded like he simply wanted to abolish governmental recognition of pair-bonding, which apparently he doesn't: he just wants a name change.

Now that's clear to me. It wasn't beforehand.

One way to possibly facilitate such a thing, since it clearly is not going to happen anytime soon through a democratic vote, is to replace the legal institution of "marriage" with "civil unions". Yes, you're really only changing the terminology, its a semantic thing, but it could affect people's opinions.
- Perhaps the most moderate, but, in reality, the religious right won't stand for the government refusing to sanction "marriage" either. They don't want a separation of church and state in the first place.

Saying that marriage is a spiritual concept which the government does not need to be involved in will appeal to the small-government right AND the secular left. Everybody wins.
- It would be nice if that were true, but I don't think it is, for the reason stated above.

Antagonizing people and making absurd comparisons to slavery isn't helping you.
- Um, it's hardly "absurd." Allowing tyranny of the majority in one instance obviously legitimates it in the other.

Clearly this is a losing issue at the ballot box, even in the most liberal states. And as ridiculous as it seems, the right is taking a hard stand on this particular issue. You won't be able to ram it down people's throats through the courts, especially now that its clear that most voters, when it's time to pull the lever in the booth, do not support gay "marriage".
- Tell that to the courts in Massachussetts, New York, Vermont, etc. California's Supreme Court will most likely now strike down the ballot initiative if the legislature doesn't override the veto.

So lets just change the terms of the debate and remove the frame of reference which makes this such a ridiculously polarizing issue.
- That's never going to happen. It's a pipe dream.

It's just as much a of a pipe dream for you to think that you can continue to use the courts to shove unwanted laws down the American peoples' throats. It is uncompromising and antagonistic attitudes like that which has led to the Supreme Court being stacked with hard right-wingers as we speak. There is legitimacy to the conservative argument that some judges are contravening the will of the people, I can dmit that even if I think the will of the people is wrong in this instance.

If you think that a few liberal courts in a few liberal states are gona be the final word on this or any matter then you're kidding yourself, and shooting your own movement in the foot.

It's not a "pipe dream" at all, and it's exactly what will happen.

The Supreme Court has acted like an ongoing Constutional Convention, in Kermit Hall's words, in the past, and it will continue to do so in the future.

The voters didn't want desegregation in the South either, but civil rights were more important than bigotry then, and that will ultimately be the case with gay marriage as well.

It's just a matter of time.

- Is that policy shift really any different than government sanction of marriage, other than simply not calling it marriage?


- i.e., I didn't want to have to keep checking back to see whether you'd answered my post or not. :)

Well, in the context of this argument, that policy shift is MASSIVE. Yes, when you break it down what you're really doing is playing a shell game of sorts, but isn't that how most problems get solved on this level? And in reality, I think that that would be a HUGE step. HUGE! And thanks for the clarification on "bump" haha. And I finally got you to understand what I was trying to say! That only took, what, 5 posts?

Actually, another reason I think my idea is a good one is because it further separates church and state. I kinda grazed over that idea in my head, but yeah, I like it for that too. For the entire time this gay marriage thing has been in the public eye that connection has kind of bothered me.

ResidentRice, I think you have a great idea and I'm quite perplexed on why people insist on misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

Thanks! But honestly, because Cowpunk has a superthick skull (j/k don't warn me red!) it made me clarify and clarify my argument so much so that I feel I've come to a place where I can really defend my point of view. The more I think of it, the better it sounds in my head.

Your point was far from clear, so you can't really blame anyone, can you?

Well, actually, I thought it was very clear. Is this really worth another post? Let's just let this one go, huh? And I'm trying to be uber-polite to you.

You didn't get it, for whatever reason, I didn't do a good enough job explaining it again, for whatever reason. You get it, I explained it, that's where we stand. If you want, let's jump back into some of these other issues though. This sparked a treasure chest worth of good topics to discuss.

Uh, "Cowpunk's super-thick skull" was "Uber-polite???" :confused:

Okay, what'd you want to discuss?

Before that! And I was totally joking with that, bro. Sorry if it came across wrong online, I shouldn't have. But yeah, before that! Look through the posts!

Now you got me feeling guilty again. Damn you and my Catholic upbringing.

How long have you been feeling this guilt? :)

...And Masters and Johnson? I personally think that a lot of their research is not quite all there, that's just me.

Alfred Kinsey's material was also basically a fraud, similar to Margaret Mead's fraudulent work.

Sure it is good that Arnold is indirectly protecting marriage by vetoing this bill promoted by homosexual extremists, but the left wing court will do their best to continue their tyranny over the people by inflicting the agenda of the left.

I even said as much in one of my threads, when you and lategreat were jumping down my throat! That hurt, too, my throat's not that big.

CP, half the country (or more) DID want de-segregation. You keep makng these fallacious and, frankly, offensive commparisons to the race issue. People went to war over slavery, they marched on Washington for civil rights. Get this straight: it's not the same situation, your legalistic semantic gymnastics notwithstanding.

And repeating smug pronouncements like "it is exactly what will happen" prove nothing but a serious detachment from reality on your part. Voters have rejected gay marriage, and if you think a Supreme Court led by Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and John roberts is going to come galloping to the defense of homosexuals' right to marry....well, deep down I think you know that's absolutely ludicrous.

Its starting to get hot up in herre.

The South did NOT want desegregation, and they were the ones desegregated. It was not a ballot intiative, and nor will gay marriage be decided by popular referenda.

There's nothing "fallacious" about such comparisons: marriage is a human right established under both international law and SCOTUS ruling. The fact that no war has been fought for gay marriage is not even beginning to be relevant.

The majority didn't have a right to deny a human right to blacks, and they do not have the right to deny one to gays.

And last time I counted, the Supreme Court was made up of nine sitting justices. The three you mentioned don't form a majority. Conservative SCOTUSs have returned ground-breaking civil rights precedents before.

And if it doesn't happen tomorrow, it will happen eventually. California was just the start.

Gay marriage has already been decided by popular referanda. I don't know why you are in such vehement denial of that very obvious fact. The Supreme Court is not going to rule in favor of gay marriage anytime soon.

Furthermore, civil rights and slavery are issues of universal human dignity. Gay marriage is only seen as a highly relevant issue to a very limited and specific demographic. most people who aren't gay really don't care that much,you just have to face that reality. And the non-gays who do care a lot apparently oppose it. A legal certificate of marriage is not equal to the right to walk in public as a free human being. Its not equal to being denied housing and education based o your skin color.

You can keep making the fallacious comparison if you want, but all you're gonna wind up doing is alienating people who take the civil rights issue seriously, especially minority groups whose support would be a major boost in getting favorable legislation passed. Again, your blustery rhetoric does nothing but alienate potential political amiability to your views. Many people have ambiguous feelings on this issue, but they do not have ambiguous feelings about slavery. When you compare the two you marginalize your own viewpoint. That's irritating to me because I happen to share that viewpoint on this matter (that gay marriage should be legal).

I don't want to debate same sex marriage, but I want to say that attempting to compare homosexuality to race is lame and ridiculous, imo. It's apples and oranges. And to show the silliness in it, if we can compare race to one sexual behavior, we can compare it to any sexual behavior. Pedophilia and race... "I was born this way, I can't change." You can do that with anything, for that matter... "I was born this way, I can't change."

There is no gay gene, last I checked. And even if there was, that still doesn't make it equivalent to race. Unless you want to say that everything that is genetic is automatically natural and healthy.... which isn't the case.

...When liberals bicker only the conservatives win.

This thread is a microcosm of why the democratic party is falling apart at the seams.

1 point to CP for the remark on sitting justices returning utterly head-scratching decisions.

1 point to RBH on noting that only a small demographic group really cares, and just about all of the straight people who have a solid view on this are in the "negative" category.

Let's keep it civil, folks. But this is some good stuff you're coming up with!

Gay marriage has already been decided by popular referanda.
- Not for long - the CA Supreme Court will most likely strike down the ballot initiative in the near future, paving the way for the legislative act if the veto isn't overriden.

The Supreme Court is not going to rule in favor of gay marriage anytime soon.
- You have no idea whether that's true or not - that's what segregationists believed before Brown v. Board of Ed as well.

Furthermore, civil rights and slavery are issues of universal human dignity.
- As is gay marriage. When any group has its rights suppressed, it's a stain on the entire society and a dangerous blow to the Constitution.

Gay marriage is only seen as a highly relevant issue to a very limited and specific demographic.
- Which is what white supremacists said about race-mixers prior to Loving v. Virginia, a ruling that lit the way for gay marriage as well.

It does NOT matter how large or small the group is, if they're being denied a right, it's a travesty of the Constitution that must be mended.

most people who aren't gay really don't care that much,you just have to face that reality.
- Since you have absolutely no idea whether that's true or not, there's no reality-facing to be had.

And the non-gays who do care a lot apparently oppose it. A legal certificate of marriage is not equal to the right to walk in public as a free human being. Its not equal to being denied housing and education based o your skin color.
- Says you. A right is a right, and it does NOT matter what the right is. You can't deny freedom of assembly because it's less "important" than freedom of religion or speech. The same with marriage.

You can keep making the fallacious comparison if you want, but all you're gonna wind up doing is alienating people who take the civil rights issue seriously, especially minority groups whose support would be a major boost in getting favorable legislation passed. Again, your blustery rhetoric does nothing but alienate potential political amiability to your views.
- It's only fallacious in your mind. If any right is denied, it's as important as ending slavery was. There's no hierarchy of rights. If ANY legitimate right is not enforced by society, no right is safe.

Once the mindset that rights can be denied by popular demand sets in, the slipperiest of slopes is created. It can end at Buchenwald.

Not for long......


....You have no idea whether that's true or not.....


....you have absolutely no idea whether that's true or not....

... Says you....




:rolleyes: Cowpunk, I'm not makng any outrageous claims here, I
am stating facts: most voters oppose gay marriage. That's a fact. And I most certainly do know that most people don't consider denying gay marriage tantamount to slavery. That's a fact. Its an absurd comparison and you're using it to espouse absurd, anti-democratic principles.

It's one thing to say that most people are wrong about this issue. I agree with that. Its another thing to say that you alone have the right to tell every voting citizen what they can or can't vote on in a democratic society, or to pretend that you are the arbiter of what is or isn't an inherent right.

Everyone can't be wrong but you.

Once again, rights are not determined by majority ballot - they're established by the Constitution.

What the majority of voters think is irrelevant, unless they're able to secure an amendment, which is unlikely.

In absence of that, it will be determined by the courts.

Once again, rights are not determined by majority ballot - they're established by the Constitution.

What the majority of voters think is irrelevant, unless they're able to secure an amendment, which is unlikely.

In absence of that, it will be determined by the courts.

WHOA. I think you crossed the line of thinking with this one. What voters think is irrelevant?

Unless they can get an amendment, sure. Where is the right to interpret the Constitution reserved to the people?

Rights don't exist at the pleasure of the voters: they're inalienable.

At some point the explicit will of the people has to be given equal weight to the philosophical meanderings of judges interpreting an ancient and ambiguous legal document. If you continually and consistently disregard the will of the people then you're simply creating a recipe for inevitable eventual civil unrest and polarization- hey, kind of like what's hapening in this country right now.

I'm sorry, I'm really not sure. Is there any language in the constitution regarding marriage? I was under the impression that the answer is no.

Rights don't exist at the pleasure of the voters: they're inalienable.

Says who?

At some point the explicit will of the people has to be given equal weight to the philosophical meanderings of judges interpreting an ancient and ambiguous legal document. If you continually and consistently disregard the will of the people then you're simply creating a recipe for inevitable eventual civil unrest and polarization- hey, kind of like what's hapening in this country right now.
The people have recourse - they can push for a constitutional amendment. If they can't get one, they don't have the "explicit will" you claim.

Since I don't see such an amendment on the table, it's a non-issue. If there really is such a majority, one will happen. If not, it won't.

Otherwise, the human rights of gays overrule any such objection.

Says who?
The Bill of Rights, for example.

I'm sorry, I'm really not sure. Is there any language in the constitution regarding marriage? I was under the impression that the answer is no.
That such a right to marriage is an extension of the Constitutional principle of privacy was established in Loving v. Virginia.

But the same people who wrote the Bill of Rights believed there was an inalienable right to own slaves.

And every state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage passed last year in every state which had one on the ballots, unless I'm mistaken. Again, you somehow seem to think you can just ignore the 60-70% of voters who consistently vote against gay marriage. You're arguing for a tyranny of the minority (a handful of federal judges), under the pretense of fighting a tyranny of the majority (the voting public).

The "right" to marry is inalienable? lol! :D

Since when is it agreed upon that marriage even IS a right? Marriage is a privilege.

So you're getting ahead of yourself by claiming it is an 'inalienable' right... it is debatable whether or not it is even a right at all.

The "right" to marry is inalienable? lol! :D

Since when is it agreed upon that marriage even IS a right? Marriage is a privilege.

So you're getting ahead of yourself by claiming it is an 'inalienable' right... it is debatable whether or not it is even a right at all.


Especially when extrapolated from another "constitutional principle" which you can't actually find in the Constitution: the right to privacy.

Uh, no, Cindy - Read the Supreme Court's decisions - it's been a legal right in the United States since the mid-60s, and, of course, is also defined as such by the international human rights law as well.

Especially when extrapolated from another "constitutional principle" which you can't actually find in the Constitution: the right to privacy.
You can find it in the Constitution: for example, the right not to be searched in the 4th. That's because you have privacy.

There's no "right to life" in the Constitution either.

"international human rights law"? lol....wow, I wish I'd known you last year around election time, I wouldn't have been so befuddled about how George W. bush managed to get re-elected. It seems like you're deliberately trying to alienate the average American from your point of view....pretty easy to see how modern mainstream liberalism got disconnected from mainstream relevance.

But the same people who wrote the Bill of Rights believed there was an inalienable right to own slaves.
- And that right was abolished by constitutional amendment.

And every state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage passed last year in every state which had one on the ballots, unless I'm mistaken.
- And the Supremacy Clause states that federal Constitution is the law of the land, and not state constitutions

Again, you somehow seem to think you can just ignore the 60-70% of voters who consistently vote against gay marriage.
- If their vote is unconstitutional, it's irrelevant. If they really have that kind of power, they can get an amendment as a recourse.

You're arguing for a tyranny of the minority (a handful of federal judges), under the pretense of fighting a tyranny of the majority (the voting public).
- Not really, since you aren't "tyrannized" because someone else has rights you don't like. You don't have the right to deny other people rights.

You'd be tyrannized if you were FORCED to marry a member of your own gender, and not because someone else has to the right to.

You can find it in the Constitution: for example, the right not to be searched in the 4th. That's because you have privacy.


The word 'privacy' is not in the 4th amendment, nor is it anywhere else in the text of the Constitution.



There's no "right to life" in the Constitution either.

Yes, we all know how the authors of the Constitution disdained the right to LIFE, liberty and ther pursuit of happiness. Weren't you just talking about inalienable rights? But life isn't one of them? And gay marriage is?

You've pretty much painted yourself into a laughably absurd dialectic corner, so with that I'll bid you goodnight.

G'night all.

Especially when extrapolated from another "constitutional principle" which you can't actually find in the Constitution: the right to privacy.

Just like with abortion. Imo, it is wrong in both cases.


Uh, no, Cindy - Read the Supreme Court's decisions - it's been a legal right in the United States since the mid-60s, and, of course, is also defined as such by the international human rights law as well.

The supreme court can rule whatever the hell they want. It doesn't make something an actual right. As we've gone over a ton of times, the law is not infallible. And also, not everyone can marry, so I'm not sure how it can be called a 'right.' If I'm not mistaken, a brother and sister or father and daughter can't marry... and polygamy is illegal. If it is a right for some people, it should be a right for everyone.... right?

The word 'privacy' is not in the 4th amendment, nor is it anywhere else in the text of the Constitution.
- Doesn't have to be: it's an established penumbra, as is the right to life.

Yes, we all know how the authors of the Constitution disdained the right to LIFE, liberty and ther pursuit of happiness.
- They certainly didn't mention it in the Constitution - that was in the unratified Declaration of Independence, which isn't a legal precedent.

Weren't you just talking about inalienable rights? But life isn't one of them? And gay marriage is?
- I'm not claiming it ISN'T a right, just pointing out that it's not mentioned in the Constitution.

Weren't you just talking about inalienable rights? But life isn't one of them? And gay marriage is?

You've pretty much painted yourself into a laughably absurd dialectic corner, so with that I'll bid you goodnight.

G'night all.

LOL! The right to life does not exist. But the 'right' to gay marriage is inalienable. :rofl:

That really did make me laugh out loud.

gnight.

Just like with abortion. Imo, it is wrong in both cases.
- Sorry, but that's not for you to decicde.

The supreme court can rule whatever the hell they want. It doesn't make something an actual right.
- Nope, if the court says it's a right, it's a right. Learn some Constitutonal and civil rights law.

As we've gone over a ton of times, the law is not infallible.
- Whether it's "infalliable" is irrelevant - what matters is that it's operative.

You don't have to think something is moral for it to be a legal right. All that has to happen is that the court issues a ruling saying it is. Rights are a legal principle.

And also, not everyone can marry, so I'm not sure how it can be called a 'right.' If I'm not mistaken, a brother and sister or father and daughter can't marry... and polygamy is illegal. If it is a right for some people, it should be a right for everyone.... right?
- Because the right to marry the partner of your choice doesn't establish a right to marry the PARTNERS of your choice. Only the former and not the latter was recognized.

However, I have no problem with polygamy, although it's a seperate issue.

LOL! The right to life does not exist. But the 'right' to gay marriage is inalienable. :rofl:

That really did make me laugh out loud.

gnight.
- Learn to read, Buttercup: I never said the right to life didn't exist - I just pointed out that it's not mentioned in the Constitution.

You can't have it both ways. Either point out where in the Constitution it's mentioned, or admit that rights don't have to be explicity stipulated.

CP, I understand what you're saying. You and I are talking about two different things. I was talking about actual rights, you were talking about legal.

Not to compare homosexuality to rape, but to make the point... if the courts decided tomorrow to legalize rape, would there be an actual, inherent (not merely legal) right to rape?

^ WHAT?

CP, I can't help but agree with RBH here. I think you and I want the same thing, but your method of getting there seems at odds with the majority of the population.

Let me say it again, this is not simply a legal issue. This is an issue of public acceptance. What you're arguing, if I'm reading it right, is that the right to marriage has been found to be a "right" by the Supreme Court? I'm not familiar at all with the case you mentioned, but that seems to be where you're headed. Then you're saying this is a case of the Supreme Court making a ruling and the rest of the country catching up to that ruling, right? Or wrong?

Anyhow, there's no denying that as of now there has yet to be a state to vote in gay rights, and a lot have tried.

Well, just to throw a thought your way, when do you define life as starting? I mean, falling down the slippery slope of logical fallacies, you could argue that male masturbation is nearly an act of mass murder. But yeah, I feel you on what you're saying. Actually, I find myself more eager to strike down faulty arguments from people on the left, simply because I think it reflects poorly on me if I let arguments similar to mine but grounded on false principles to stand.

I really don't have a good idea on when I deem life to start. It's certainly after the combination of sperm and egg, but when I don't know. I err on the side of protecting an embryo's right to life before protecting a woman's right to privacy, though, until and unless it can be demonstrated to me why we shouldn't define life as the moment those 46 chromosomes are combined.


So you're ok with civil unions?

To me, "equal protection under the law" means the government is blind to distinctions based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. So it's not equal for the government to say "We'll give 'marriage' licenses to straights and 'civil union' licenses to gays." It shouldn't even know the license applicant's orientation. Sticking those 8 letters m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e on gays' certificates isn't a fight I'd personally take up because I'm lazy, but if the issue fell on my lap, no I'm not fully ok with civil unions. But if it carried the substantive weight of marriage rights, that's all I'd worry about personally.

Sorry if I sounded so clinical about something that, in the end, doesn't directly affect me, while in all earnestness might define the future of your life. But yeah, I'm on your side. I wish that I could just wave a magic wand and make things "right" but.... There's nothing meaningful I can say but I can let you know that as far as tertiary relationships go, you seem alright to me.

Well, thanks. No need to be sorry.

Government recognizes civil unions, and ONLY civil unions. Marriage as an institution no longer exists in the vocabulary of the government. Any 2 consenting adults of the legal age can enter into a civil union.

CP is right. This would NEVER happen. Too many people want a CLOSER state-religion (their religion) relationship, not a bigger rift. They want the government reaffirming the virtue of being "us" and marginalizing "them" as the boogeyman.

CP, I understand what you're saying. You and I are talking about two different things. I was talking about actual rights, you were talking about legal.

Not to compare homosexuality to rape, but to make the point... if the courts decided tomorrow to legalize rape, would there be an actual, inherent (not merely legal) right to rape?
Cindy, there IS no difference between "actual" rights and legal rights. That distinction exists only in your mind.

Rights are a man-made concept, and social construct. Other than the legal system, there's no arbiter of them.


At least not in THIS world...

I don't want to debate same sex marriage, but I want to say that attempting to compare homosexuality to race is lame and ridiculous, imo. It's apples and oranges. And to show the silliness in it, if we can compare race to one sexual behavior, we can compare it to any sexual behavior. Pedophilia and race... "I was born this way, I can't change." You can do that with anything, for that matter... "I was born this way, I can't change."

There is no gay gene, last I checked. And even if there was, that still doesn't make it equivalent to race. Unless you want to say that everything that is genetic is automatically natural and healthy.... which isn't the case.

****. **** **** **** **** ****. Brittle and tired are these old bones of this same old line. Is this dumb argument a hurdle that needs to be climbed every time two individuals discuss gay marriage somewhere in the world? I wish I could shout it from the rooftops and fly banners through the sky to put an end to it.

It shouldn't be difficult to recognize the difference between those saying "I was born this way" re: their homosexuality or their pedophilial feelings. TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. In fact, it doesn't matter for beans whether the claim to having been born with those feelings is even true or not. Maybe gays are born that way. Or maybe they "choose" to get hard-ons for one sex and not the other. Regardless, their relationship doesn't require government intervention because the only affected people are the consenting adults who enter into it. If you're "born" liking kids, or liking to commit arson, or liking to kill, that doesn't matter. That's an urge you have to control because it involves non-consenting kids/victims by definition.

You don't have to say jack sh*t about homosexuality being natural and healthy. But if it doesn't affect you, you even pretend to show a government interest in intervening there.

If I'm not mistaken, a brother and sister or father and daughter can't marry... and polygamy is illegal. If it is a right for some people, it should be a right for everyone.... right?

You're right, we don't want them marrying, so we shouldn't let gays marry. In fact, we shouldn't let straights marry because we don't even want to get an INCH down that slippery slope. No marriage.

Oh wait, that's a ****ing ridiculous bullsh*t straw man non-argument. If you can't say why the government has an interest in saying "you can't do this" to one group, don't hold up another group and argue against that as if it has some relevance.

Why no polygamy? Because a marriage license SIMPLIFIES lines of emergency decision-making, child custody, inheritance, residency, etc. etc. by binding you to one other person so that the government doesn't have to get all Schiavo-family-style up in every family's business. Granting a web of licenses to different wives is completely anthithetical to this interest.

Let me say it again, this is not simply a legal issue. This is an issue of public acceptance. What you're arguing, if I'm reading it right, is that the right to marriage has been found to be a "right" by the Supreme Court? I'm not familiar at all with the case you mentioned, but that seems to be where you're headed. Then you're saying this is a case of the Supreme Court making a ruling and the rest of the country catching up to that ruling, right? Or wrong?

Anyhow, there's no denying that as of now there has yet to be a state to vote in gay rights, and a lot have tried.
- Correct, RR - the right to marriage has been recognized by the US gov't for over 40 years now.

And "public acceptance" is a red herring: every time a progressive social change has occurred, conservatives have come out of the woodwork during the ramp up phase to proclaim that if: blacks are allowed equal rights; gays are permitted to teach school; races are allowed to intermarry; sodomy is legalized, etc., the people will rebel and society will go up in arms.

It's never happened. It never will happen.

No, instead society will just continue to swirl downward into a cesspool of moral relativism as we discard our traditional values.

Unlike slavery and laws against sodomy, the nuclear family is the foundation of Western Civilization. It is also the most successful construct in the history of humankind for raising healthy children who become successful, productive adults (not foolproof, but far better than the alternatives).

I have a lesbian sister, love her dearly, and want her to have a fantastic life. She and her partner should be allowed to form a civil union, but this doesn't have to be included under the definition of traditional, heterosexual marriage. As far as the government should be concerned, marriage is actually a form of civil union, defining the rights of the two parties of the contract. Government's role is to provide a means of recourse in the event that the contract is breached.

Marriage is a social institution and should be considered as separate from the civil union aspect. Religions and other (voluntary) social institutions set the parameters of marriage. Having the government involved breaches the sanctity and separateness of these institutions (ie, will the government force the Catholic Church to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals?)

The Governator has made the right decision to respect the will of the people.

Uh huh, just like Canada's been destroyed by gay marriage! :rolleyes:

Sorry, not buyin' it. No evidence whatsoever that society will be impacted in way by gays marrying, nor is there any rational reason why heterosexual marriage should be considered more "moral."

That's as relative a moral concept as any.

I see that CP has both feet firmly planted on his terra infirma of misinterpretting The Constitution (that is SARCASM, btw).

The evidence is all around us. Just take a look at the extreme lack of standards in the media, the vulgarity of modern society, the materialistic focus, the lack of spirituality, the abuse of the environment on and on and on.

Western Civilization is at risk due to a Crisis Of Values. Corrupting the traditional defintion of marriage is just another brick in the wall.

No, instead society will just continue to swirl downward into a cesspool of moral relativism as we discard our traditional values.

Unlike slavery and laws against sodomy, the nuclear family is the foundation of Western Civilization. It is also the most successful construct in the history of humankind for raising healthy children who become successful, productive adults (not foolproof, but far better than the alternatives).

I have a lesbian sister, love her dearly, and want her to have a fantastic life. She and her partner should be allowed to form a civil union, but this doesn't have to be included under the definition of traditional, heterosexual marriage. As far as the government should be concerned, marriage is actually a form of civil union, defining the rights of the two parties of the contract. Government's role is to provide a means of recourse in the event that the contract is breached.

Marriage is a social institution and should be considered as separate from the civil union aspect. Religions and other (voluntary) social institutions set the parameters of marriage. Having the government involved breaches the sanctity and separateness of these institutions (ie, will the government force the Catholic Church to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals?)

The Governator has made the right decision to respect the will of the people.

::scratches head:: So it sounds like you're all in favor of recognition of gay relationships besides those 8 letters m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e? And that you'd be in favor of the gov't just doing away with marriage licenses entirely and granting civil union licenses to all? I'm a little confused why the semantics matter so much to most people, but it just seems really silly to me that you support Arnold's "defense" of those eight letters so passionately, yet so many people who profess to support civil unions--the substantive component--do so so fickle-ly as to let those 8 letters on the license be the ultimate decisive factor when the issue comes to a vote.

I see that CP has both feet firmly planted on his terra infirma of misinterpretting The Constitution (that is SARCASM, btw).

The evidence is all around us. Just take a look at the extreme lack of standards in the media, the vulgarity of modern society, the materialistic focus, the lack of spirituality, the abuse of the environment on and on and on.

Western Civilization is at risk due to a Crisis Of Values. Corrupting the traditional defintion of marriage is just another brick in the wall.

::scratches head again:: These things are associated with gays?

'Cause I'm no fan of a value-less society either.

I am completely consistent. The Government's role is to fulfill the Rule of Law - not to Establish a Secular Religion Subsitute. Leave marriage to religions and other social (non-governmental) institutions - and leave government to defining and enforcing the rights and responsibilities of the civil union contract.

I am completely consistent. The Government's role is to fulfill the Rule of Law - not to Establish a Secular Religion Subsitute. Leave marriage to religions and other social (non-governmental) institutions - and leave government to defining and enforcing the rights and responsibilities of the civil union contract.

So the government should not issue licenses with m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e on them?

::scratches head again:: These things are associated with gays?

'Cause I'm no fan of a value-less society either.


Eroding our traditional constructs (ie, heterosexual marriage) is one of the things that has led to an overall disintegration of values. One among many, I am sad to say.

I see that CP has both feet firmly planted on his terra infirma of misinterpretting The Constitution (that is SARCASM, btw).
- Uh huh, tell that to Chief Justice Earl Warren, who wrote Loving v. Virginia. Since you know nothing about constitutional law, you're in no position to make the statement.

The evidence is all around us. Just take a look at the extreme lack of standards in the media, the vulgarity of modern society, the materialistic focus, the lack of spirituality, the abuse of the environment on and on and on.
- And not only that, but lesbians caused 9/11, Reverend Falwell!

Western Civilization is at risk due to a Crisis Of Values. Corrupting the traditional defintion of marriage is just another brick in the wall.
- No, whatever crisis we have was not caused by homosexuals in loving partnerships. Exasperation on the part of the right wing that people aren't buying their bull**** doesn't constitute a social "crisis."

Eroding our traditional constructs (ie, heterosexual marriage) is one of the things that has led to an overall disintegration of values. One among many, I am sad to say.

A) I'm confused about how gay relationships contribute to an erosion of heterosexual relationships.

B) It's apparent we have different perspectives on this, but regarding social mores, while it may be unfortunate that we watch MTV instead of read a newspaper, watch porn instead of the opera, spend our Sundays drinking instead of volunteering at a kids' day camp, the government's role isn't to determine whether we sink or swim thanks to our weaknesses. I don't like people losing track of good, healthy values, but unless I can see them striking a victim, or setting fire to a house, or stealing a car, I (by proxy of our democratic government) don't have a right to keep them from partaking in a behavior, including their MTV, porn, or drinking.

Eroding our traditional constructs (ie, heterosexual marriage) is one of the things that has led to an overall disintegration of values. One among many, I am sad to say.
No, what's led to the "distintegration of values" is denial of human rights on the basis of arbitrary social constructs like "traditional marriage."

I am completely consistent. The Government's role is to fulfill the Rule of Law - not to Establish a Secular Religion Subsitute. Leave marriage to religions and other social (non-governmental) institutions - and leave government to defining and enforcing the rights and responsibilities of the civil union contract.
Civil marriage IS the law, as are the SCOTUS rulings regarding substantiative due process as it relates to marriage as a human right, so by permitting gay marriage, the gov't IS enforcing the law.

Then they should just call it a Civil Union.

I don't have a problem with the ridiculousness of homosexual marriage as long as the governments are consistent and permit marriage to relatives, multiple people, and most important, beloved pets. Pets and their owners should be able to be on the same health insurance plan. Pets have rights too.

http://www.geocities.com/jimdeecken/dog.txt

More important than this idiocy, hopefully Arnold will veto the insane bill that the leftists came up with that permits illegal invaders to get drivers licenses, voting rights, etc.

Then they should just call it a Civil Union.

That won't happen because people are so passionately attached to those 8 letters.

It seems that you're putting a larger priority on what letters are printed on the top of the license than to the substance--the rights gay couples are denied. And that just seems crazy to me.

I don't have a problem with the ridiculousness of homosexual marriage as long as the governments are consistent and permit marriage to relatives, multiple people, and most important, beloved pets. Pets and their owners should be able to be on the same health insurance plan. Pets have rights too.

Animals can't enter into contracts.

And, in most states, neither can Snouter. :)

Eroding our traditional constructs (ie, heterosexual marriage) is one of the things that has led to an overall disintegration of values. One among many, I am sad to say.

Whose values?
Moral values, much like language, experience change over time. The values you hold near and dear today are most likely not the same as those held by your ancestors 200-300 years ago. Marriage is not even the same institution that it was 200-300 years ago for that matter. Women's rights in the 20th century changed all that.
I think the idea that there are some traditional constructs, consistent through time, that are just now experiencing change, is a very strange way of perceiving reality.

The real problem with the whole gay marriage debate, in my opinion, is that a lot of people are simply resistant to change. This is a new idea, and it is different than the old ideas, therefore it is automatically resisted. Change is inevitable.
The idea of gay marriage is now out in the open. Those who oppose gay marriage now will probably have kids that don't see a reason to oppose it 50 years from now. Two generations from now, it will probably be hard to understand why it was such a big deal.

Anyway, I still think abolishing the role of government in marriage is the best option. It is the most fair option at any rate.

The crux of the issue is that the majority of folks - myself included - aren't buying the idea that "sexual orientation" is on par with gender and race as a classification of people deserving special protection.

In the end, homosexuality is a behaviour that could arise from any number of causes. Putting aside the "consenting adults" argument, what is the fundamental difference between pedophiles and homosexuals? Or someone with a fetish for sniffing socks? Or folks with a sadomasochism bent? They all boil down to what attracts a person - to what "gets their rocks off" so to speak.

And, no, heterosexuality isn't a behaviour; it is a natural function of gender.

I think many homosexual advocates are merely looking for glory in the fight. They hate that they missed out on the real civil rights movement of yesteryear, so they'll take up the homosexual cause and parade it around like the real thing.

The crux of the issue is that the majority of folks - myself included - aren't buying the idea that "sexual orientation" is on par with gender and race as a classification of people deserving special protection.

How lucky for gays, then, that they aren't asking for "special protection," but rather equal benefits from the government that they pay equal taxes to.


In the end, homosexuality is a behaviour that could arise from any number of causes. Putting aside the "consenting adults" argument, what is the fundamental difference between pedophiles and homosexuals? Or someone with a fetish for sniffing socks? Or folks with a sadomasochism bent? They all boil down to what attracts a person - to what "gets their rocks off" so to speak.

Putting aside the "consenting adults argument? No difference. How great, though, that that argument ought not be put aside. It's pretty important, I think. :eek3:

And, no, heterosexuality isn't a behaviour; it is a natural function of gender.

The most unnatural thing for me would be to try to get fresh with a girl. Watch me try sometime. It's hilarious.


I think many homosexual advocates are merely looking for glory in the fight. They hate that they missed out on the real civil rights movement of yesteryear, so they'll take up the homosexual cause and parade it around like the real thing.

Nah. I don't care about "glory." I don't care whether the world hates me or likes me. I don't care about anything but being able to enter into a relationship with a man I love without the added stress of whether the government will recognize his residency status at college in my home state, his right to determine what the hospital does to me when I'm incapacitated, his right to own property jointly with me. What inspires "many homosexual advocates" is irrelevant to the righteousness of each position in the debate.

Pedophiles can marry, and frequently are married--just not to kids. "Someone with a fetish for sniffing socks" can also legally get married. They can even get married to someone who lets them sniff their socks. Sadomasochists can get married too, and often do.

Also, homosexuality is something that can coexist with the other types of "deviant" behaviour that you listed. One can find a hetero- or homosexual sock-sniffer, pedophile, or sadomasochist. They are not mutually inclusive, or exclusive.

Invalid argument based on faulty comparisons. Your points may be valid, at least to those who agree with you, but comparing a gay man to a sock-sniffer is faulty logic.

Whose values?
Moral values, much like language, experience change over time. The values you hold near and dear today are most likely not the same as those held by your ancestors 200-300 years ago.


B'loney. Complete and utter regurgitated backwash constantly spouted by the Moral Relativists of the Left who are intent on shoving a Statist Secular Religion Substitute down our throats.

Our country was founded upon Judeo-Christian Values - which are the only values in the history of humankind to result in sustainable systems which honor individual rights. There are Eternal Healthy Truths which Affirm Life. These are the bedrock of our legal system. It is in our interests as a society to preserve these truths.

Sorry, but the primary founding fathers - Jefferson, Madison, Franklin - rejected such values, and took up Deism and masonry instead.

They did NOT believe the state was to be founded on religious values,