Pajamas Media

137 Comments

1. lee:

Iowans, please push for your equavlent of “prop 8″. I (as a minority) voted yes, and many who voted for Obama also voted yes.

Does Iowa have a pretty diverse population? California minorities really offset the white vote (51% no, 49% yes) on prop 8. Although, I imagine Iowa is bloody red compared to CA.

Oh, GOP, when will you learn that most minorities are reverse libertarians (socially conservative and often religious, but enarmored with big govt. and immigrantion activism). Court their vote and approach them appropriately. They’ll support a number of your cause.

Apr 5, 2009 - 1:39 am 2. Bob:

Don’t expect Iowans to rush into a Prop 8 type of constitutional amendment. I live in eastern Iowa. Most local lawmakers were in shock and didn’t react strongly against the decision. Saturday, the local paper ran a lengthy editorial supporting the Iowa Supreme Court decision. Today’s headline is: “Same-sex marriage could provide jolt to Iowa’s economy.” In other words, Iowans are mostly scratching their heads and/or looking for ways to cash in on their state’s avant-garde decision.

Apr 5, 2009 - 4:39 am 3. John B:

Is this yet another example of liberal judges negating the will of the voters and legislating from the bench?

When will the judicatory branch ever learn that when there’s a question mark in their minds about the law they should let the people decide. That’s what Prop 8 in CA was all about, letting the voter tell the government what they thought traditional marriage was all about.

Apr 5, 2009 - 5:08 am 4. Ret7army:

In the 1800s the Dredd Scott decision by the SCOTUS resulted in Congress passing a law in direct contradiction, thereby continuing the civil rights of the black community of the time. The effects are still with us today, a person’s vote is equal to another person’s vote no matter their color.
This appears to be a case, again, where the courts need to be brought up short.
One wonders if those in Iowa still have the gumption needed to take this bull by the horns

Apr 5, 2009 - 6:07 am 5. G Alston:

D.K. Douglas — It’s no surprise, then, that the Iowa Supreme Court was relegated to declaring anyone who doesn’t agree with the radical gay agenda as socially deviant.

What radical gay agenda would that be? The one where those radical gays have the nerve to fall in love with one of their own gender? Oh my. How awful.

It’s a wonderful thing when two people fall in love and decide to make a life together. (Unless of course their doing so fails to meet your approval. Offer void in some states.)

Your entire silly rant would be meaningful if being gay was a choice, but it’s no more a choice for a gay to be attracted to his/her own gender than you being attracted to the opposite. The premise for your rant and the entire social conservative position on this issue is that being gay is a choice (and interestingly, most often couched as one that is made merely to annoy.) This business of failing to understand the issue and then making pronouncements anyway is what makes social conservatives equivalent to troglodytes; it’s no different than marching against the teaching of evolution.

Meanwhile, Obama and his minions are going to tax carbon, and you’re busy worrying about whether or not Dave and Bob steal a kiss. Nice way to stay focused on the important stuff.

Apr 5, 2009 - 6:19 am 6. Omar:

Rod Dreher over at Beliefnet has a good entry on this issue with many interesting excerpts from Conor Friedersdorf and Jane Galt. Galt, in particular, makes some excellent arguments I hadn’t encountered before.

Dreher writes,

“Galt, a libertarian, says she’s neither for nor against gay marriage — both sides have good arguments — but she’s really fired up about the lack of skepticism about the potentially bad outcomes of grand social engineering, e.g., gay marriage, which has no precedent. It’s so smart and thoughtful I wish I had written it — but I can sure quote the hell out of it. Excerpts:

“Social conservatives of a more moderate stripe are essentially saying that marriage is an ancient institution, which has been carefully selected for throughout human history. It is a bedrock of our society; if it is destroyed, we will all be much worse off. (See what happened to the inner cities between 1960 and 1990 if you do not believe this.) For some reason, marriage always and everywhere, in every culture we know about, is between a man and a woman; this seems to be an important feature of the institution. We should not go mucking around and changing this extremely important institution, because if we make a bad change, the institution will fall apart.
A very common response to this is essentially to mock this as ridiculous. “Why on earth would it make any difference to me whether gay people are getting married? Why would that change my behavior as a heterosexual”

To which social conservatives reply that institutions have a number of complex ways in which they fulfill their roles, and one of the very important ways in which the institution of marriage perpetuates itself is by creating a romantic vision of oneself in marriage that is intrinsically tied into expressing one’s masculinity or femininity in relation to a person of the opposite sex; stepping into an explicitly gendered role. This may not be true of every single marriage, and indeed undoubtedly it is untrue in some cases. But it is true of the culture-wide institution. By changing the explicitly gendered nature of marriage we might be accidentally cutting away something that turns out to be a crucial underpinning.

To which, again, the other side replies “That’s ridiculous! I would never change my willingness to get married based on whether or not gay people were getting married!”

Now, economists hear this sort of argument all the time. “That’s ridiculous! I would never start working fewer hours because my taxes went up!” This ignores the fact that you may not be the marginal case. The marginal case may be some consultant who just can’t justify sacrificing valuable leisure for a new project when he’s only making 60 cents on the dollar. The result will nonetheless be the same: less economic activity. Similarly, you–highly educated, firmly socialised, upper middle class you–may not be the marginal marriage candidate; it may be some high school dropout in Tuscaloosa. That doesn’t mean that the institution of marriage won’t be weakened in America just the same.

This should not be taken as an endorsement of the idea that gay marriage will weaken the current institution. I can tell a plausible story where it does; I can tell a plausible story where it doesn’t. I have no idea which one is true. That is why I have no opinion on gay marriage, and am not planning to develop one. Marriage is a big institution; too big for me to feel I have a successful handle on it.

However, I am bothered by this specific argument, which I have heard over and over from the people I know who favor gay marriage laws. I mean, literally over and over; when they get into arguments, they just repeat it, again and again. “I will get married even if marriage is expanded to include gay people; I cannot imagine anyone up and deciding not to get married because gay people are getting married; therefore, the whole idea is ridiculous and bigoted.”

They may well be right. Nonetheless, libertarians should know better. The limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality. Every government programme that libertarians have argued against has been defended at its inception with exactly this argument.”

[Dreher continues . . . ]

Galt goes through three examples of major policy changes that reformers swore wouldn’t possibly turn out as poorly as their critics said they would. And the reformers were completely wrong. She concludes by saying this doesn’t mean same-sex marriage shouldn’t be enacted, necessarily, but:

“My only request is that people try to be a leeetle more humble about their ability to imagine the subtle results of big policy changes. The argument that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage because you can’t imagine it changing your personal reaction is pretty arrogant. It imagines, first of all, that your behavior is a guide for the behavior of everyone else in society, when in fact, as you may have noticed, all sorts of different people react to all sorts of different things in all sorts of different ways, which is why we have to have elections and stuff. And second, the unwavering belief that the only reason that marriage, always and everywhere, is a male-female institution (I exclude rare ritual behaviors), is just some sort of bizarre historical coincidence, and that you know better, needs examining. If you think you know why marriage is male-female, and why that’s either outdated because of all the ways in which reproduction has lately changed, or was a bad reason to start with, then you are in a good place to advocate reform. If you think that marriage is just that way because our ancestors were all a bunch of repressed bastards with dark Freudian complexes that made them homophobic bigots, I’m a little leery of letting you muck around with it. . . . ”

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/gay-marriage-fear-and-skeptici.html#more

Apr 5, 2009 - 6:44 am 7. don:

ANother nail in the coffin of traditional societies! The point of all of this is that we should make the right to reproduce a regulated one. With the Green agenda becoming the law of the land soon there will be not enough resources to satisfy the needs of a population used to plenty. The reason? Excess mouths to feed (and many never contributing a wit of effort other than wasting resources). Ms Pelosi was right, planned parenthood will save the states monies. Where she kept quiet is the fact that the best way to save that money in a more permanent way, is for as much of the population as possible assume non-reproductive lifestyles. Encouragement of Gay marriage is just another means of shrinking the populations of selected groups. There should be a more broad based effort to spread the neutralization of the populations, perhaps we should make marriage more of an economic contract, with children being the criteria for additional taxes? Another means would be a federal law to license reproduction (no license = abortion, or heavy tax penalties?). By whatever means, physical (sterilization or voluntary removal from the gene pool), or psychological (chemical, or counseling) turning large numbers into a drone status is a necessity for the Green society. We must lower the amount of mouths to feed, otherwise how can our mother Gaia support us?

Apr 5, 2009 - 6:45 am 8. David S:

How is this an attack on traditional marriage? I haven’t seen anyone protesting the traditional marriage rights of mixed gender couples, or seen any indication that this ruling would impact these rights.

What is really happening is that equal protection is being properly understood to protect the rights of minority populations against the tyranny of the majority – exactly what our Constitution is supposed to do. Eventually this understanding will be adopted by the SCOTUS, and same-gender couples will no longer be denied the rights afforded their mixed-gender cohorts.

What really galls is the attempt to frame this issue as an attack on “traditional marriage”. It is no such thing. What really is going on is a pre-emptive war on the rights of a persecuted minority, and the judicial system is rightly rejecting such arguments as unconstitutional.

Marriage as a sacred union is not at issue here – marriage as a legal union is what has been denied to same-gender couples. The Iowa court is correct to recognize this distinction, and has ruled appropriately. Their unanimous decision speaks clearly to the unsupportable assertions of homophobic activists.

The bottom line if you don’t approve of gay marriage? Don’t have one.

Peace.

DS

Apr 5, 2009 - 7:01 am 9. Greg Scott:

The author REALLY needs to reconsider his description of marriage laws as “ban[s] on gay marriage.” DOMAs and marriage protection amendments are affirmative statements of what marriage IS, not what it is not. Using the same approach as the author does, you can call a DOMA a “ban on group marriage” or a “ban on polygamy.”

Referring to laws protecting the definition as it has always been in this country, until radical homosexual groups began attacking it through the courts, is a surrender of the language. Once you surrender the language, you lose.

It is more accurate to call the Iowa law, “the 1998 law that preserved the definition of marriage” instead of “the 1998 legislative ban on same-sex marriages” as the author described it. Same-sex “marriages” are mentioned nowhere in the law. Homosexual activists just happen to be the ones attacking marriage today.

Apr 5, 2009 - 7:03 am 10. Jeff:

I think that David S (#4) makes a good point. Marriage as defined by the law of the land is a legal contract between two people. I am a conservative, and will not be picketing when my government makes a civil union between same sexes legal. However, I will protest at my church if my church redefines marriage as sacrament, or covenant between anything other than a man and a woman.

There needs to be a clear line between church and state. It is imperative conservatives rally to the cause of individual rights, and separation of church and state.

Apr 5, 2009 - 7:30 am 11. SGT Ted:

So, I would guess that supporters of same sex marriage will have no problem overturning anti-polygamy statutes? I mean, really, aren’t we being bigoted when we say marriage can be between two people only? Who are we to judge someone elses desire to find love and happiness? If someone doesn’t support polygamy, but supports gay marriage, on what basis do you refuse others the right to marry whomever they choose, multiple adult partners-wise? Morality? Well, you’re just another closed minded bigot, possibly anti-religious as well, aren’t you?

I repeat, on what legal or moral basis would a gay marriage supporter now refuse to allow legal adult polygamist relationships? I bet you can’t answer that question, can you?

Apr 5, 2009 - 7:40 am 12. Fred Beloit:

The judges are clearly wrong. This issue is not about equal rights before the law, as Neal Boortz and others have pointed out. Both straights and gays have the legal right to marry a person of the other sex, men to marry women, women to marry men. What gays want is a “special” right. “Special” rights are granted, or not, by legislators, not judges.

Iowa needs to impeach those judges for incompetence and failure to understand the law.

Apr 5, 2009 - 7:49 am 13. Will:

It seems the chicken s Iowa legislature handed the matter over to the supreme court. The people have no say. Legislating from the bench is unconstitutional.

Apr 5, 2009 - 7:54 am 14. SteveB/Colorado:

“another nail in the coffin of traditional societies…” Let’s see now; so-called traditional societies used to include “fun things” like slavery, bans on mixed race relationships, women not having the right to vote, lack of availability of even basic birth control devices like condoms, restrictions on divorce, inability of women to inherit property or money, etc. Need I continue?

Poor Don is conflating a lot of issues, few of which are related to the Iowa decision. What exactly is the “green agenda?” What are the “selected groups” that gay marriage will be used to shrink? “As much of the population as possible (to) assume non-reproductive lifestyles:” are you saying that there should be a government requirement to have children? Mandatory reproduction, as I recall, was required in the Communist dictatorship overthrown in Romania in 1989. And it should be noted that gay couples have children.

“Turning large numbers into a drone society is a necessity for the green society…” Funny, that sounds like Communism, not anything related to the environment or its protection.

Mr. Douglas talks about an “anti-gay blacklist” and left wing intolerance. That is sad, but no different in my view from the radical right wing jihad against Planned Parenthood and anyone connected with providing abortion services to women. Both are examples of how much our country has lost the ability to engage in courteous & civil dialogue.

I think David S. has very good comments. I’ll add, as a life-long & true conservative Republican, that I have yet to see any convincing case that gay marriage is undermining our society, undermining mixed gender marriage, or is leading to the decline & fall of Western civilization.

Apr 5, 2009 - 8:07 am 15. LynnS:

I think that this ruling is an indication that the United States Legislature through the Congress needs to step in and create a Constitutional Amendment affirming the definition of ‘Marriage’.

Without the United States affirming the definition of ‘Marriage’ as between one man and one woman the courts in the United States will be subject to the Judicial System playing over and over again word games and having to address “Marriage” as being what the beholder wants.

This argument should be about whether or not marriage should be given special legal standing NOT the redefining of marriage.

The relationship between a man and a woman is not the same as any other, when given legal or religious or personal standing it is defined as marriage. Any other relationship; man-man, women-women, etc. should not be defined as marriage. It may be a union or a partnership or an agreement that may deserve legal standing but it is not a marriage of man, woman, bride, groom, husband, wife.

How much longer does the judicial system have to speak before the legislature will step in and do their job. The activist’s aim is not to create legal standing for their “union”, they want marriage to be redefined. They want the relationship between a man and woman to be the same as the relationship between a man and man or woman and woman. It is not.

Apr 5, 2009 - 8:17 am 16. sule:

I agree with #10…Impeach. We “the” people are in charge, not the other way around.

Another stronghold that should go is “tenure” for teachers and professors…why should these “protected” groups enjoy a job security that is denied to the taxpayers paying the freight?

Apr 5, 2009 - 8:22 am 17. Kastco:

A door has been opened. For example, now that Gays can be legally married, what about poligamy? Or what if I want to marry my dog? or my sister? the equal protection argument can be used to protect any of these behaviors and ultimately will be

Apr 5, 2009 - 8:42 am 18. Phil M:

Look marriage in the eyes of the government is a contract between two people and serves the purpose of providing some semblance of regulatory balance in terms of economic, social, judicial management. If Church XYZ does not want to religiously sanctify gay marriage that is their perogrative but don’t expect the government to enforce a religious based moral rule. You cannot deny people their constitutional rights based on their sexual orientation when it does not suit your view or morality. Gay marriage is not an attack on traditional marriage — religious intolerance is an affront to all (or should be). When I married my wife, who is a different race than I, in 1977 it was still illegal in many states for different race couples to wed. The logic behind those majority approved “laws” were that they were protecting society from immorality. Twenty five years from now we are going to look back at these times and wonder how people could be so intolerant, bigoted, and homophobic — and all in the name of protecting morality.

Apr 5, 2009 - 8:48 am 19. momof3:

Why stop with gays, or even polygamists as Sgt ted suggested? Why not let siblings marry? Legally insane people? Parents and offspring? Who are we to tell anyone how to live their life at all? You’re not benefiting society? Who cares, all that matters is your own immediate personal self-fulfillment. The notion that we as citizens owe something to our country is sooo passe, no? Marriage has nothing to do with having children, or raising them in stable environments to become stable productive adults. It’s just society slapping a bill of approval on your personal way of getting your rocks off, apparently. Gee, I bet 6000 or so years of human history had no idea it was so very, very wrong about marriage.

I love the Jane Galt article. it should be required reading for all pro-gay-marriage people. I’m sure some of them have brains they just aren’t currently using.

Apr 5, 2009 - 8:55 am 20. Bill Perron:

Gay, gay, gay, stop with the political correct whitewashing of homosexuality. It is homosexual marriage not gay marriage. Can’t believe how so many have bought into the propaganda of so few. It is disingenuous to say one thing when you know it really means another. Gay means happy, carefree, light hearted, homosexuals may or may not be happy, carefree, or light hearted, but to assume they are all “gay” is naive.

Apr 5, 2009 - 8:56 am 21. Dave:

Another step in the wrong direction and America’s decline. Marriage is being rewritten to mean endorsement of personal relationship and away from the institution where couples raise their biological children which has proven through study and tradition to be a bed rock of civilization. It was emphasized and given special status for a compelling reason and that reason was not to give endorsement to any and all personal relationships.

This decision will also further divide the country. Most people would have accepted some sort of civil union, but this is just another all or nothing legal decree from unelected little dictators that will be an open wound for generations.

Sadly, now that these well educated fools have done this, there will be a nasty fight to amend the constitution of Iowa that will leave a great number of people unhappy no matter what the outcome.

Apr 5, 2009 - 9:03 am 22. LynnS:

#18 Phil M:

Your wife is a women, you married a women. You can speak to the injustice of society frowning upon inter-racial marriage and using laws to prohibit it but you cannot argue that the joining of a man and women defined as marriage is the same as a man and man or women and women joining together.

Many people who are against defining marriage as anything other than a man and woman joining together is not intolerant, bigoted or expresses fear of homosexuals. There are many people who would sanction the law giving the union between a man and man or women and women legal standing or protection but do not think it should be ‘defined’ as marriage.

By your argument there should be no limit to what the word ‘marriage’ means as long as it is between consenting adults. Before ‘marriage’ becomes what the beholder wants, it should first be defined. Right now it is the union between one man and one women, bride, groom, husband, wife. The people who are taking the cases to court are pushing for an examination of the definition of marriage. It is they who are responsible for the necessity of the legislature to define it. If it becomes anything other than one man and one woman, it will be a redefinition.

Apr 5, 2009 - 9:13 am 23. Bilgeman:

#21 Dave:
“Sadly, now that these well educated fools have done this, there will be a nasty fight to amend the constitution of Iowa that will leave a great number of people unhappy no matter what the outcome.”

That’s what must be done, regardless.

Until the states’ and Federal Constitutions are specifically amended one way or another, this issue will be subject to the vicissitudes of legislative politics and judicial interpretation.

There’s no other way. The Iowa decision was procedurally unavoidable, and based on the fact that no-one ever contemplated homosexuals seeking to be legally married in the eyes of the law when the constitution was adopted, the Iowa justices really had no other choice than to interpret the laws as they were written, which are probably silent on the gender preference/sexual orientation of the parties involved.

Once the constitution is amended, (and this could take a long time, since I ken that the political homosexual lobbies don’t really WANT to put it to a plebiscite), the ground will be fundamentally altered.

Apr 5, 2009 - 9:37 am 24. Bilgeman:

#18 Phil M.
“Twenty five years from now we are going to look back at these times and wonder how people could be so intolerant, bigoted, and homophobic — and all in the name of protecting morality.”

You are assuming a great deal here.

And since your crystal ball is no more clairvoyant than my own, how about if in twenty-five years, when the genetic markers that predispose one to homosexuality are identified, (if they indeed exist), and homosexuality is “cured”, then we will look back on the movement to legally recognize homosexual marriage the same way we look back today at the lack of laws that allowed Typhoid Mary to keep her job.

OTOH, when it is scientifically proven that homosexuality is a matter of conscious preference,(if THAT is the case), then we might look back on these times as the point that society decided that it would not allow itself to be abused on the basis of who some people decide they want to sleep with.

Marriage is already forbidden, in most states, between a male and a female if one of them is below the state-established age of consent.

If homosexual marriage is allowed, then on what basis would you stand to continue to bar pubescent or pre-pubescent marriages?

There are other lands where child-marriage is culturally accepable and widely practiced, y’know.
I’m not advocating that here, but the question you should answer is:

Are you?

…because we are a nation of immigrants, and someone from such a land might take a fancy to YOUR child.

What “bigotry” and “intolerance” will you yourself be guilty of in that case?

Apr 5, 2009 - 9:51 am 25. G Alston:

#11 — I repeat, on what legal or moral basis would a gay marriage supporter now refuse to allow legal adult polygamist relationships? I bet you can’t answer that question, can you?

For a legal basis, untangling polyamorous estates would be problematic and inherently unfair.

#17 — A door has been opened. For example, now that Gays can be legally married, what about poligamy? Or what if I want to marry my dog? or my sister?

Nonsense. Being gay is about biology; the rest of what you present is choice. You understand there’s a difference, yes?

#15 — They want the relationship between a man and woman to be the same as the relationship between a man and man or woman and woman. It is not.

And why not? If the definition is offspring, then those with vasectomies or reproductive problems ought not be allowed to be married either. Marriage is human mind to human mind, about love and commitment. Are you suggesting homosexuals don’t know of these things?

Apr 5, 2009 - 9:59 am 26. Omar:

Phil M: ” . . . You cannot deny people their constitutional rights based on their sexual orientation when it does not suit your view or morality. . . ”

_____________________

Well my “sexual orientation,” is polyamorous so why can’t I use the equal protection clause to force your society to recognize my polygamous marriage? Because it’s against your “view of morality?”. Puleeaasse.

See how it works?

Either marriage means something (like the definition of one man one woman that’s existed in western civilization for millenia), or it means whatever the h*ll you want it to mean, depending on your mood. Canada went down this road a few years ago. In response to recent petitions to have polygamy legalized, the government, clearly anticipating the move (no surprise there as this was the inevitable next step despite what the SSM advocates are telling us today), the government is forced to assert that polygamy is “against Canadian values.” Well, if that argument doesn’t work to defend tradidional marriage today, why would it work to protect the larger society from polygamy? The argument is EXACTLY the same in both cases. If you erode the underpinnings of something as basic as the gendered nature of marriage, everything is up for grabs, and like so much of the liberal progressive agenda, the results will almost certainly NOT be pretty.

Apr 5, 2009 - 10:05 am 27. TurfMonster:

#21: Well said.

This is just another effort to create exploitable crises so that the left can expand the government yet some more. These Plevin-Cloward (sp? I really don’t care if I get these two jerks’ names correct but I’m close) radicals need to be marginalized. Unfortunately, they seem to have a lot of support in our courts and this has to arise from our law schools. Perhaps we ought to be hauling a bunch of law school profs in front of our legistlative bodies and demanding explainations from these jerks as well? And maybe even closing more than a few of these departments as well?

Apr 5, 2009 - 10:17 am 28. Iman Infadel:

Marxism in action.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071210142404/http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/2/v2n2_mth1.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20070929090408/http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/2/v2n4_mth.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20071220194938/http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/2/v2n6_mth.html

Apr 5, 2009 - 10:36 am 29. Don:

SteveB, a “Drone” is a non-reproductive member of an insect society (Bees, Ants, Termites). They provide muscle and effort, but do not reproduce. Just as much of the community regards Heterosexuals as “Breeders” that same community should have no problem with the proper nomenclature. A “Green” society is one that shuns the technologies and raw materials that make modern societies possible. So Nuclear, Oil/Gas and coal are no no’s. Add to that the aversion to modern agricultural techniques and you will have a nation that has too many mouths and too many consuming. So, to encourage the mass adoption of non-reproductive lifestyles, voluntary suicide mandatory abortions and (the definition of “post natal” abortion) execution, is an imperative for the good of the “Greater” society. Perhaps the biological engine drives this involuntary (in some individuals) adherence to non reproductive lifestyles. With government becoming the self licking ice cream cone, it should become the one true determiner on who should be allowed to reproduce, receive medical care, and decide who shall live and die and when. The people are mere raw material for processing, to be fed “bread and circuses” until they remove themselves (or are removed) from the gene pool. Homosexual marriage makes perfect sense in a society like that.

Apr 5, 2009 - 10:59 am 30. sean:

Geez, Socons, you are losing power. Hemmoraging it really. Coudn’t be better for the true Conservative Movement. You know, the one that actually respects people’s private lives. Let them get married. Get over it.

Apr 5, 2009 - 11:27 am 31. TurfMonster:

Good to know that #30 thinks that child marriage is not anyone’s business.

Some really sick people on the left but that isn’t news.

Apr 5, 2009 - 11:59 am 32. TurfMonster:

#25

“Nonsense. Being gay is about biology; the rest of what you present is choice. You understand there’s a difference, yes?”

The twins studies don’t necessarily agree with this. There is a component of genetics and intrauterine chemistry that is involved but the environment is present as well.

Apr 5, 2009 - 12:05 pm 33. Geoff:

“Nonsense. Being gay is about biology; the rest of what you present is choice. You understand there’s a difference, yes?”

So basically what you’re saying is that sexual behaviors are only biological when they pertain to the political body you belong to, in all other cases they’re nurture?

What a load.

Apr 5, 2009 - 12:12 pm 34. John Moore:

This is yet another sign of the increasing domination of our society by “elites” who purport to act in our interests. Judges are especially dangerous in this regard because of their office.

When judges start inventing new social forms, they should be thrown out. Their extreme arrogance is to presume that the wisdom of the ages has been wrong all along, and their undemocratic decision will set it straight. When the rule of law is replaced by the dictats of elites, why should we respect the law?

Apr 5, 2009 - 12:29 pm 35. Omar:

Here’s another good post from Rod Dreher pointing out that, if you really listen to many of the most prominent SSM advocates, it’s not really about seeking the inclusion of gays into an existing paradigm of traditional marriage, it’s really about altering/destroying the traditional definition of marriage so that it’s more flexible and responsive to people’s “needs” based on the multifarious ways in which they form their “families.” Read it for yourself:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/changing-the-definition-of-mar.html#more

Apr 5, 2009 - 12:36 pm 36. Jack:

And lets not forget, plenty of people have legal marriages of convenience for the benefits that being married affords them. No one cares if married people reproduce or if they are happy or if they even live together. All you have to do is sign on the dotted line and voila, state benefits. No need to prove love or even affection. Hell, I could marry the woman I most hate as far as the state is concerned.

So that being said, if I’m allowed those benefits for marrying someone I met once on the Internet and don’t even live with, why is it so important that that someone be of the opposite sex?

It’s totally ludicrous that some of you don’t know the difference between religious marriage and state given benefits for what it calls marriage. They are different and to not recognize the distinction means you are making a religious argument, and ergo, that argument has no bearing in politics. And don’t try to make it about what our collective morality is, because your morality doesn’t condone marriages by people like I have described (i.e. signing papers and never seeing each other again).

Jack

Apr 5, 2009 - 12:45 pm 37. SGT Ted:

For a legal basis, untangling polyamorous estates would be problematic and inherently unfair.

So? Untangling 2 person marriages with children are problematic and are inherently unfair. What so hard about doing it for more than 2 people? Civil Courts deal with legal issues involving sometimes millions. Why would a polygamy case be harder than a class action settlement?

And the science is hardly settled as to whether or not being homosexual is an irreversable biological phenomonon, despite your claim, as the link you provide doesn’t support your position. Ever hear of the term “Lesbian until Graduation”? There are ex-homosexual people out there. Never heard of an ex-black person, though. Except for maybe Michael Jackson.

What if my orientation is to have multiple sex partners in order to lead a fulfilling life and to be truly happy? I may want to marry all of them to show my love and commitment to them and to have a family.

Why are you denying the Constitutional rights of people based on their sexual orientation when it does not suit your view or morality?

I could do this all day. It’s so easy.

Apr 5, 2009 - 1:01 pm 38. David W. Lincoln:

As long as authority challenges little fiefdoms,
you can count on the fiefdoms to say this is irrelevant: homosexuality and transgenderism are
poor ways to communicate the reality that men and women are different.

After all, this is a politicized issue, and it is
high time for the pendulum to swing the other way.

Apr 5, 2009 - 1:47 pm 39. LynnS:

#25 G. Alston —

#15 They want the relationship between a man and woman to be the same as the relationship between a man and man or woman and woman. It is not.

And why not? If the definition is offspring, then those with vasectomies or reproductive problems ought not be allowed to be married either. Marriage is human mind to human mind, about love and commitment. Are you suggesting homosexuals don’t know of these things?

Huh????? If your putting words in my mouth, don’t. I never said that the definition of marriage is offspring. Where did you get that from.

Marriage is not human mind to human mind. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. A man and a women become husband and wife.

I am suggesting that marriage is not defined as a man and a man or a woman and a woman forming a union and becoming husband and husband or wife and wife.

You are making the suggestions about homosexuals. I am suggesting that marriage should not be redefined.

Apr 5, 2009 - 2:24 pm 40. RV:

It must make a lot of you happy that the newly free and democratic Iraq are executing the icky gayz that you feel are sub-human. Yeah for freedom!

Apr 5, 2009 - 3:26 pm 41. RV:

It is quite simple – the State has no business recognizing marriage in any form to begin with. The state should only be recognizing signed contracts between consenting adults. If the person’s church wishes to call their union a “marriage” than that is their choice. But the State should only be concerned with the contract itself.

And I also see that people are bringing out the gay marriage leads to people marrying their dogs arguement, one of the dumbest lines of thought out there.

Apr 5, 2009 - 3:31 pm 42. G Alston:

#39 — I am suggesting that marriage should not be redefined.

The Iowa court said that there is no definition, so it’s sorta tough to argue that anything is being “re”defined at all.

#37 — I could do this all day. It’s so easy.

Yes. We can all play your silly game, pretending that there’s no difference between choice and no choice. Gays don’t choose to be gay.

#32 — The twins studies don’t necessarily agree with this.

Read this:

http://gc.homeunix.net/home/post/42

Apr 5, 2009 - 3:47 pm 43. Omar:

RV:

“It must make a lot of you happy that the newly free and democratic Iraq are executing the icky gayz that you feel are sub-human. Yeah for freedom!”

___________________

Ya got that folks? Anyone who objects to redefining a thousand year old social institution to suit the liberal agenda of the past 30 years might as well be celebrating the murder of gays in Iraq!

Simply amazing.

Apr 5, 2009 - 4:04 pm 44. Jack:

#37 SGT Ted – Why do you care? No one is arguing for religious marriage, only for civil marriage. If you get a tax break for some reason, why shouldn’t someone else who meets the same (civil) criteria? Read my #36 post to get my gist. Is your concern about the religious aspect of marriage or the civil benefits for those who are married?

As to your taking the gay marriage issue to other potentialities, our free society will respond to those situations (as long as you let us). If we decide as a country to let people name goats as beneficiaries, then I guess we’ll do it. This is one of those cases where people have found an inequity that doesn’t sit well with them and our country (thankfully) doesn’t stomach inequities forever. Slavery, prohibitions against inter-racial marriage, etc have fallen by the wayside, and gay marriage will eventually. I kind of doubt that many of the possibilities you mention will ever rise to the level where the majority will stand up and shout. But, and you can bank on this, gay marriage will. We aren’t cave men anymore, and we are slowly figuring that out. I’m sorry if it makes you feel uncomfortable, but civil rights have made lots of people uncomfortable over time, and yet we’ve gladly overcome it eventually (in some cases).

#39 Lynn S – Kind of simple question here, but are you defining marriage as a religious entity or a civil one? I don’t care if we call gay partners “buddies” rather than married, but as long as we attach civil benefits and rights to a pairing, I don’t know why we should allow a man and a woman who hate each other and never see each other and who sleep with other people rights we wouldn’t give to a same-sex couple who live together in a loving and monogomous relationship. I think this is a key question too often dodged by the opponents of gay marriage (because it’s a tough one to effectively counter).

#42 Omar – So, um…what? You can call it a liberal agenda, but as I recall it was the Republicans that pushed for civil rights for blacks. I bet back then it was called the “xxx” agenda. Does that make it wrong? You can call it a liberal agenda all you like, but luckily in this country, freedom wins over time…its just a shame that the folks who are stuck in the past fight it for so long (and do so by throwing up strawmen and trying to obfuscate the issue). I don’t know how old you are, but if you have another 40 years to live, I think you’ll look back on your philosophies and if you don’t realize the error of your ways, you’ll at least (I hope) realize that you are the product of bygone days of a new (to us) kind of descrimination.

Jack.

Apr 5, 2009 - 4:39 pm 45. Jack:

And in general, for those who always want to take the slippery slope argument, we have made plenty of provisions in our laws that have not slipped to the crazy. To argue that if we do one thing, we’ll do the next twenty things is just silly and you know it. You voted for the Patriot Act that allowed certain kinds of investigative activity? Did you also vote for FBI agents in all of our bedrooms? Because once you let them listen to some of our phone calls without warrants, then why not let them listen to all of our calls without warrants? Why not put bugs in all of our homes? Why not have cameras in every room in the country?

Anyone who tries to take the slippery slope argument is showing that they aren’t rational, democratic, or are simply in the wrong place. If the people agree to an issue, it (eventually) becomes law. If you HONESTLY think that the majority of Americans want to allow people to marry sheep or 32 boys from Honduras, then I question your mindset. Or, then again, maybe if the majority of Americans want those things to happen, then maybe we have a democracy. Or, if you don’t care for that, I can name plenty of countries that have more stringent rules that you’d probably find more agreeable. That you don’t agree with the majority is likely your problem. That gay marriage isn’t the majority opinion yet is simply a matter of giving it time (plenty of lessons to be learned about how long it took us to get from slavery to equality…and some would say we still haven’t quite nailed it…).

Jack

Apr 5, 2009 - 4:48 pm 46. Bilgeman:

Jack:
“Slavery, prohibitions against inter-racial marriage, etc have fallen by the wayside, and gay marriage will eventually.”

Didn’t work out that way in California,did it?

But since you’re so confident that this is a future “done deal”, I’m sure you’ll have no objection when it comes up as a referendum to amend Iowa’s constitution, right?

It seems to me that you’re repeating the mistake that caused the Gay Lobby to overplay their hand in California…EVERYONE they alked to was against Proposition 8!

Except the voters.

Which is why they eneded up running off the edge of the cliff, like Wile E. Coyote, and standing on thin air.

Homosexuals have very little to gain from state-recognized marriage, but a great deal to lose from any possible backlash that might come from their overheated political rhetoric.

I offer RV’s post #40 in support of this contention.

It just might happen that instead of gaining marriage, they lose what tolerance of their lifestyle/orientation they have managed to accrue.

Society just might decide that it likes Gays a whole lot better if they stay in the cloaet.

Something that bears thinking about…

Apr 5, 2009 - 5:20 pm 47. TalkinKamel:

No one is arguing for gay religious marriage—yet.

But I’m sure that’s coming. And, when it does, churches will be persecuted for “hate crimes” if they refuse to marry gay couples.

Apr 5, 2009 - 5:24 pm 48. Charm School:

If it is true, as the august members of the Iowa Supreme Court assert, that “equal protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation”, then what happens if a majority of the legislature should decide to re-institute slavery, or suspend the franchise of women? If society is to be re-ordered totally to satisfy each generation, then that can only lead to chaos.

Apr 5, 2009 - 5:52 pm 49. momof3:

“And it should be noted that gay couples have children.”

Not naturally they don’t. It’s by definition impossible. True, not all hetero marriages can or do reproduce. But the large majority do. That’s WHY married people get tax breaks. The assumption is they are contributing to the stability and continuation of society, so society helps them. A gay couple can adopt, and get the child tax break too. I really don’t see how they think their lives are unfair.

“Nonsense. Being gay is about biology; the rest of what you present is choice. You understand there’s a difference, yes?”

There’s more science showing pedophiles are “born that way” than that gays are. Are we discriminating against them by not allowing them to marry whoever they want? I imagine being gay is both nature and nurture. And how do Bi’s work? Did they get half a gay allele, or what?

“Marriage is human mind to human mind, about love and commitment”

Again, nonsense. Marriage was, until very recently, more to do with stabilizing society and finances and nothing to do with love. I’m not arguing we go back to that, but it’s purpose to society came far earlier and is much more important than it’s meaning to the 2 involved. It is a fundamental stabilizer of society, and anyone who doesn’t believe that can reference the black culture where marriage is nigh-on unheard of now, and see how stable and great it is. Want to talk about a slippery slope? See what giving unmarried mothers welfare did. An entire paradigm shift for the worse in one generation.

As far as the majority being against”discrimination” against gays, that’s patently untrue. Less than 1/3 the country supports same-sex marriage. Seems like you all ought to reread the post about the majority winning to yourselves.

This is now an issue, because some gays started making enough noise and got some backers. There is no reason polyamorous people won’t do the same. Or polygamists. Or polyandrists. Not because the majority of america suddenly woke up one day and decided it was wrong. And certainly not because most of us are for it.

Apr 5, 2009 - 6:13 pm 50. beatrice:

Jane Galt’s argument is remarkably weak — so weak I’m surprised to see anyone repeat it as a serious argument. It boils down to “I don’t like gay marriage, therefore I claim that it will cause some undefined harm to someone in the future. Thus it should be outlawed.” No facts, no details, no proof — just Jane’s own personal speculation that some heretofore-unseen boogeyman might arise. That’s not an argument, that’s a personal paranoia begging to be taken seriously.

Sorry, Jane, this matter is about the law, not about religion. In order to deny a class of American citizens the same rights as other Americans enjoy, you’ll need to provide proof and logic, not speculation and dogma.

Apr 5, 2009 - 6:26 pm 51. robotech master:

to 49. beatrice

Heh thats more the argument for the whole pro-gay marriage… in CA they have civil union which are equal to marriage… expect the religion part. So gays are demanding that the government enforce their religion upon them and force them to marry them and so forth. Clearly to the gay marriage movement it is solely about religion and them forcing theirs onto others.

The simple fact is this is a matter of law and thus the gay marriage movement has no leg to stand on. Their is no law stopping gays from getting married… their are many restrictions are what marriage is however. 1. Its between a man and a women. 2. A person must be of legal age to agree to be married.

The argument of gays which is the same argument made by polygamists, child molesters, and a host of other groups is they wish to change the restrictions.

For gays that restriction is between a man and a women.
For polygamists that restriction is between how many men/women to how many other men/women.
For child molesters its whats the legal age.
etc etc etc.

Their arguments are completely and 100% the same in every way. Just what they want changed is slightly different.

Gays are not some endangers species. Even if we are to argue that being gay is biology(which is up for debate) so in many respects are any other sub-set. In fact they’re a huge amounts of evidence that support child molesters have issues in the brain… should they be allowed to have sex with 10 years olds just because their biology says its ok?

I have no problem with the whole civil unions thing… my problem comes in when gay militants wish to force their religion onto me or others… no other religion is allowed to do that. I also find it funny that no one points out that all the Mormon basing is a crime under international human rights laws… yet no one seems to care much about them. Gays in the US are some of the whiniest most stuck up wind bags their are. While in other countries like iran, iraq, palestine and a host of other gays are stoned to death(which is fully support by these gay who demand “equal rights”. Yet they care nothing about them.

Gay want the word marriage because it will give their religion legal standing and the right to sue churches who refuse to marry them. Its as simple as that. They don’t care about equal rights they just want another legal way to oppress anyone that disagrees with their religion.

Apr 5, 2009 - 8:15 pm 52. Jack:

#46 Bilgeman – You question be about California against the backdrop of hundreds of years of slavery? That’s funny. You mention a referendum. Isn’t it odd that you would propose a referendum against a fair treatment clause. As long as you are writing fair treatment out of the Constitution, lets get rid of those pesky white folks too…that’d be neat. You see, the end run around freedom is fundamentally anti-American, so suck it up tight when you sign that bill…it WILL be used against you too. Talk about a slippery slope!!! You can argue about little bits of legislation all you like, but the bottom line is “niggers” can vote now, and they can even marry white women. It may come by dribs and drabs, but that 3 states now allow gay marriage is proof that you are going to lose over time. No, I didn’t call you a racist, but the fundamental free American will realize that freedom is king and you are, well….wrong. No need to argue, my stance has won historically and if it loses now, it’s only because you advocated the death of freedom…I hope you enjoy your win!

Unless you want to talk about the difference between religious marriage and civil marriage, in which case you can read my other posts…still waiting on a reasonable answer to any of them….#44 or #45…marriage is a farce. It’s about a man and a woman who want to get Civil benefits. Preach on!

You (attempt) to argue that there are no civil benefits of gay marriage. Well, I’m glad that you’ve decided to stop fighting it. Thanks for your support. We don’t mind you calling it another name, so we’ll just take the benefits of marriage and move on. You are clearly willing to let it happen, and will add your support to the next bill (provided that they are called ‘buddies’ and not ‘married’ of course!!). Much appreciated!! Unless if we call it “pals” or “buddies” it still bothers you…can me and my friend not be “pals”? What if I want to see my “pal” in the hospital…is that wrong? Why don’t you want me to see my “pal” in the hospital? What can that hurt?

#47 Charm School – Welcome to a Democracy!!! If we decide that you ppl need to be in cages, then get ready for it. The question is, will democracy move towards good or evil? I like to think that we will move towards good as human nature wants. Thankfully, we have done so (although slowly) over the part few hundred years. Which is why I think the gay marriage haters will go to their graves having to talk to Jesus about why they hated others, but that’s a matter of time. But, yes, you are at the mercy of the masses…not the ones who want to do right. So when you sign up against the rights of others, think about what might happen when you are in the minority. It might not be so civil as you pretend to be now. Think of yourself as an anti-black person…they are still alive you know….how do you think they will be judged by God? Which side of civility do you want to be on? The one that judges today, or the one that looks back on slavery and says that maybe it wasn’t a good idea? It’s up to you, but I’m feeling pretty good right now.

#48 momof3 – Um no. I was married and I didn’t get a tax break…in fact I got a tax penalty because we didn’t have kids. I paid more because our combined incomes put us in a higher tax bracket. Your point?

Oh, and a gay couple doesn’t need to adopt…lesbians can go to a bar and wink at a guy. Is that how you want pro-creation to work? Is that how you want tax laws to work?

Oh, and as man I can knock up any woman I meet on the street…do I get a discount? I had a kid after all!! Is that how it works…procreation wins? I might even pay money for the kid, but I dont have to marry the female…is that ok? Can I still claim the kid on my tax returns?

You mention how “black” unions are un-stable. Are you proposing outlawing them? Maybe people on certain drugs shouldn’t marry. What if a guy has a streak of depression….maybe he shouldn’t be allowed to marry. What if a guy urges for little children but never acts on it…should he not be allowed to marry? Your laws would say he can.

Again, read my #45 post and respond then. Think.

Jack

Apr 5, 2009 - 8:50 pm 53. Dave:

I’m sorry Beatrice, but you are just wrong. This is not about rights. It is about an institution that when taken seriously and as a duty, has provided a stability to civilization that has been one of the few lasting good things over the millennium. It is just fact that on the macro scale (yes there are bad marriages and parents – we are talking macro), people have a better outcome when they are raised by their biological parents.

I understand the impulse to not want people to feel left out or excluded. That in and of itself is not a bad thing. But to do away with traditional marriage when civil unions and other options are available is destructive because it discounts the real reason why we value traditional marriage.

I understand the desire for tolerance, but this goes long past tolerance into advocacy territory – advocacy for something that provides absolutely no benefit for our society. We can deal with the contractual needs with civil unions without discounting the role and importance of marriage.

Apr 5, 2009 - 8:55 pm 54. Jack:

#51 robotech – Read my #44 and #45 and respond. I don’t think we are far apart…what if they give up the word “marriage”? From a civil perspective, who cares what we call it. The sad part is (as you said) the anti-gay marriage wing is closer to the iran/iraq folks than what we have here….or at least I hope.

Jack

Apr 5, 2009 - 8:59 pm 55. G Alston:

#49 — There’s more science showing pedophiles are “born that way” than that gays are. Are we discriminating against them by not allowing them to marry whoever they want?

What part of the concept of “consenting adults” are you having difficulty with?

Apr 5, 2009 - 9:51 pm 56. robotech master:

To 54. Jack

My main and most important reason is the word marriage. I oppose religion(not ppl practicing but any form of “encourage” from the government) and everything that pro-gay marriage movement is about is insane radicalized religion plain and simple. No other group gets to go into public school and indoctrinate kids with their religious beliefs why should gays. If being gay really is biology then theirs no reason for ppl to even talk about it in school… your gay or your not period. However in many areas they have ppl come in and encourage ppl to “try out” being gay… thats wrong, its no different then any other religion and/or lifestyle. It is not within the vein of the public school to in anyway or any form take a viewpoint on the matter. They are not their to pass judgment on groups they are their to teach facts.

If religions nut bags would give up the word and all the lawsuits and other garbage that goes with it many many ppl would support them. The problem is many ppl like me really see what this movement is about… simply put its about oppressing other ppl beliefs… hate crime laws are also designed to oppress some groups and give privilege to others, they are no different then the old jim crow laws where if a black guy committed a crime vs someone white it was “extra wrong”. The violent acts after the whole prop 8 vote only reinforces this simple historic fact. The fact that gays go around suing ppl at every little slight and because they are not carter to personally also supports this fact. I find it funny how gays hate to be “outed” yet they publish list upon list of ppl who supported prop 8… can you imagine the cries of hate crime or racism(because somehow it is racist….don’t ask me but they say it is) if pro-prop 8 groups did the same with the ppl who opposed prop 8? The simple fact is their is a massive double standard with massive hatred coming from gay groups toward anyone and everyone that isn’t gay.

One of the reasons we have things like the 10th amendment is to curtail many of these problems. If gays want to get together and vote that they get civil union in a state(like CA) then go for it… however forcing other states to pass the same law under some kind of perverted “equal rights” BS excuse is wrong. The fact that gay pose this as some kind of “equal rights” movement is a joke. They wish to advance a life style that even if caused by biology is still that a life style. Writing a law down that says the life style is outlawed is wrong…(within reason which gets back to the kid touchers) but demanding that it be put up as somehow better then anyone else is also wrong… if they want to be treated like everyone else act like everyone else… ie be freaking sane. However thats not how they act(not gays but the gay marriage movement) and they demand they be treated better then everyone else and that they are somehow better then everyone else.

The whole argument is petty… its almost as bad on the other side with the idea that we should amend the constitution over it… thats also insanely stupid. The problem comes down to the fact that these ppl have way to much time and way to much hatred within them to be considered anything but a threat to society as a whole. The gay marriage movement is so petty and so bias from real life it is just astounding. Until these religious nut balls shows some tolerance and stop acting like a bunch of zoo monkeys flinging poo at anyone that they think wronged them the debate is really meaningless. Ppl will oppose any form of gay “marriage” be it civil union or any other form until they see that gays can live and act as normal ppl… without crying racist/hate crime every time someone doesn’t agree to their demands.

Add in the simple fact that most ppl fall somewhere in to this group… polling shows that around 70% of ppl in the US have no problem with civil unions… however 70%(same ppl) oppose gay marriage. Ppl see that the movement is about oppression and should it win they will do everything in their power to throw anyone who believes in a religion(including atheists) that doesn’t endorse being gay in jail for a “hate crime”. That is not freedom… one of the great things about the US is its perfectly legal to hate anyone and anything you want… as long as you stay in your F***ing corner while you do it…this movement is a classic case of a hate group not staying in their F***ing corner.

Apr 5, 2009 - 10:05 pm 57. Bilgeman:

#52 Jack:
“You question be about California against the backdrop of hundreds of years of slavery?”

No Jack, I was asking you to recognize that as much as you tried to conflate the institution of chattel slavery and racially-based discrimination with society’s refusal to affirm the gay lifestyle, it didn’t even float in California when it was put to the only test that matters…the votes of the people.

“You see, the end run around freedom is fundamentally anti-American, so suck it up tight when you sign that bill…it WILL be used against you too. Talk about a slippery slope!!! You can argue about little bits of legislation all you like, but the bottom line is “niggers” can vote now, and they can even marry white women.”

Uhhh, chum…have you got something OTHER than homsexual marriage on your mind?
Would you care to spit it out?
You obviously STILL don’t “get it”.

Black Californians didn’t buy your BS line of argument, and you’re doing yourself absolutely no good by insinuating that I’m a racist bigot becuase I’m not buying into your homo-politics.

But, hey…by all means…don’t let me stop you from persevering in your efforts in the manner that has brought you so much success.

“It may come by dribs and drabs, but that 3 states now allow gay marriage is proof that you are going to lose over time.”

Wow…three states, how very impressive!

I feel almost like a killjoy when I ask you how many states have written restrictions into their constitutions that limit marriage to heterosexual couples only.
(Many MORE than the three you have).

Oh, and I’m not absolutely positive about this, but I think that the 3 states that DO recognize homosexual marriage do so because of judges’ opinions.

Once and if the effort gets underway to change those states’ constitutions, you might not like what you find…citizens’ votes and amendments to constitutions trumps judge’s opinions and legislation every day of the week.

“No need to argue, my stance has won historically and if it loses now, it’s only because you advocated the death of freedom…I hope you enjoy your win!”

Well now, that’s an equivocatory statement if I ever read one!

You’re a winner who is going to win, so I shouldn’t waste my time arguing, but just in case you lose it’s all MY fault because I’m a bad person.
Not YOURS for making bad arguments in a manner that alienates everyone, huh?

Thanks for the snicker, Jack.

Apr 5, 2009 - 10:24 pm 58. Gene Lalor:

“Okay, get your thinking hats on, class, please, because we have a little quiz today and let’s have no cheating, borrowing answers, or conferencing. It’s an easy quiz, just one question, and those of you who have kept up on current affairs–and not the affairs in Hollywood or on Desparate Housewives–should do just fine if you’ve been paying attention to the world around you.”

Sounds of discontent begin.

“Ok, here we go. You will have more than enough time to pose queries and then 10 seconds from the time I finish asking the question and the end of the Q&A to write your answer. And stop the complaining that 10 seconds isn’t enough time. The quiz requires only a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response.

“The one question is, and wait until I finish asking it before you interrupt, please: Has any state in the United States of America ever approved by a constitutional, popular vote the legalization of marriages of people of the same gender? Yes or no?”

Suzie at once raises her hand and blurts out, “You never said we had to know this for a test!”

“Well, no, Suzie, but this isn’t a test, it’s just a quiz.”

“Yeah, but still, it’s no fair,” Suzie adds as she folds her arms in indignation and murmurs of agreement filter through the room.

“What do you mean by, ‘constitutional, popular vote,’ anyways?” Johnny blurts out. “What’s so popular about voting?”

“No, Johnny, ‘popular’ there refers to ‘reflecting the will of the people,’ not ‘popularity’ as with rock stars, for example.”

Johnny harrumphs.

“Any other questions?”

“Yeah, Teach, ah got a question,” Lionel chimes in. “What about this constitution thing, huh? I mean, what’s dat got to do with it? Who cares what some old White dudes wrote down thousands of years ago?”

Encouraged by a smattering of tepid applause, Lionel goes on. “I mean, if some sistah and some other sistah or some brutha and some other brutha wanna make hookin’ up all legal and whatevah, why not let them be happy? Ya know what ah mean?”

Lionel returns to his seat to another smattering.

“Umm, Lionel, I know what you mean, I think, but first of all, it was hundreds, not thousands, of years ago, 1787, to be precise, and . . .”

“Wait, what’s all this have to do with the quiz?” Dwight asks.

“Good point, Dwight, and if there are no other questions, the 10 second answering time begins now.”

“Wait, wait, hold up, please! How much will this count toward our final average?” Suzie blurts out.

In the event it wasn’t obvious, that dialogue never actually happened verbatim although in one way or another it may well be the topic of discussion in many a classroom over the next week or so given the most recent trashing of America’s Constitution by the Iowa Supreme Court: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97B1TH80&show_article=1.

Once again, a judicial entity has superseded the authority and the right of the American people to determine who is legally entitled to marry whom in an ostensible democratic republic.

This issue of homosexual marriage seems to have a life of its own. Voted down by popular vote in California last November when Left Coasters resoundingly, and surprisingly, endorsed this simple 14 word amendment to its constitution, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” one would have thought the case was closed.

Not by a long shot.

Even though the vote was 52.3% to 47.7% against the gay agenda, in one of the most liberal states in the nation, that expression of the majority will of the people only ignited homosexual activists who then resorted to heated demonstrations, rioting, threats of violence, and even death threats to get their way.

(See “Homosexuals Resort To (More) Threats of Violence,” http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=745, for details and links to those efforts at intimidation.)

Undeterred by that defeat, and preceding it, homosexuals have also been resorting to liberal state courts as a remedy. . .

(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com/)

Apr 5, 2009 - 11:12 pm 59. stevent12x:

I for one am outraged. I live in Iowa and as soon as this legislation came down from the top, I immediately called up my attorney to file for a divorce from my beloved wife of 14 years. I walked into the next room and said my tearful goodbyes to my two darling children. Upon leaving my home, I headed over to the local park to find some children to have my way with. But, finding no suitable young ones around, I settled on a street dog that happened upon my path. My newfound desire for such wicked, depraved acts could not be satiated though. I found a bum and traded unspeakable sexual acts for heroin which I promptly shot up right into my balls. This helped to take the edge off, yes, but I craved more. So I looked up the nearest gay bar in town and headed down to see if I could get my fix. After having three guys all named Damien grind and rub themselves all over my shirtless body for the entire night – all too my disgust of course – I finally passed out in the cleanest gutter I could find. Now it’s morning and I’m writing this (standing, I don’t think I’ll be sitting down for a while) at one of the Damien’s apartment, wondering “What went wrong?” Curse you Iowa!!

Apr 6, 2009 - 1:27 am 60. stevent12x:

@49

Also, what part of the concept of “science” are you having difficulty with?

Apr 6, 2009 - 1:28 am 61. Omar:

Beatrice:

You did not pay very close attention. Galt says in several places that she has no opinion about gay marriage and doesn’t plan on developing one. That’s part of what makes the article so interesting. If you want to understand her ACTUAL point, you may want to re-read it.

Apr 6, 2009 - 5:17 am 62. Class Clown:

The real reason that many of us otherwise tolerant people oppose same-sex marriage is that we see it as a trojan horse. And the dirty secret is that radical leftists see it that way too.

What do I mean by “trojan-horse”? That radicals are out to break down the family as an institution of society, and they can use the re-definition of marriage as a step in that direction. If you think I am paranoid, simply make an even cursory search of radical websites (including in particular radical feminist ones), and see for yourself that this is exactly their goal, and it is exactly how they interpret each successful step towards same-sex marriage. In fact, given the tortured vocabulary of the mainstream “debate”, their honestly stated agenda is almost refreshing.

Those whom have sought the overthrow of our culture, from Stalin to Pol Pot to Mao to Hitler, have always viewed the family as an enemy and an obstacle. The wisest of their critics even put that theme front and center. Have you ever noticed that in both Huxley’s Brave New World, and in Orwell’s 1984, totalitarian regimes have eliminated the family?

For that matter, even the hippie movements of the ’60s specifically had it in for marriage and the family. Wasn’t that the entire point of free love and communes? And now we are to trust the Left that creating a new definition of marriage will have no consequences? Is it even possible to create a new definition without destroying the old one? The breakdown of the family unit is already directly correllated to nearly every other social problem there is. We must resist at all costs.

Apr 6, 2009 - 7:01 am 63. LynnS:

#44 Jack

“#39 Lynn S – Kind of simple question here, but are you defining marriage as a religious entity or a civil one?”

I have a hard time walking a chewing gum, but I’ll take a stab at both.

Civil marriage= A man and a woman, become husband and wife.

Religious marriage = A man and a woman, become husband and wife.

Now it can get more complicated when say first cousins want to marry or brother and sister, or father and daughter, or mother and son, etc. but we won’t go into that because the law does, just as they are being pushed to with the issue of “redefining” marriage.

The activists are pushing for marriage to be defined/redefined and they alone bear the responsibility of this issue.

It has absolutely nothing to do with wishing violence against homosexuals. It has absolutely nothing to do with good marriages, bad marriages, divorce, child bearing, etc. It should not be used to judge the condition of marriage in this country. It is nothing more and nothing less then persons who want marriage to be changed to mean ‘other than’ the union between a man and a woman.

I also believe it has nothing to do with some homosexuals wanting equal rights and protections. Although rights and protections may be a worthwhile fight, it, to me, is first and foremost their wanting to have their relationship be ‘marriage’ and the definition changed to two adults.

It is my understanding that the courts in Iowa are agreeing with them ruling that the word ‘marriage’ defined as the union of a man and a woman is unconstitutional because it excludes other relationships such as man and man, and women and women.

Apr 6, 2009 - 7:21 am 64. friedfish2718:

Major and long-lived religions and civilizations have all experimented with homosexual “marriage” (yes, even the Roman Catholic Church early on). But these experiments were short-lived; from an empirical and pragmantic pov one has to ask why. Religions, nations are like biological entities: they strive to grow and remain healthy; apparently homosexual “marriage” did not help. Through all of their respective histories, heterosexual marriage was and is a constant.

One can experiment with homosexual “marriage” today. Only difference now is society is technologically more advanced; however, human nature remains the same.

The current US society is becoming more libertine. It may be the natural progression of things. Abortion is already mainstream. Welfare (for individuals and companies) is becoming more
popular. Mainstreaming of homosexuality looks to be the next item in the agenda.

People are looking at the short-term consequence, not the long-term.

People confuse discrimination (usually good) with prejudice (bad and stupid).
People confuse equality (usually good) with egalitarianism (bad).
People confuse liberalism (sometimes good) with libertinism (usually bad).

Apr 6, 2009 - 7:29 am 65. Jack:

#56 Robotech – So you don’t like people teaching your kids how to be gay, ok fair enough. Can we just get on with gay marriage now? If you want me to approve of anything any gay person has ever done I can’t. Nor can I approve of anything any straight person ever has…both sides of every issue has their nut jobs, which is why people who come up with the slippery slope argument fail. Agreeing to gay marriage isn’t the same thing as letting the gays come around your neighborhood to molest your children each week. It’s just not.

And if you had the kind of hatred in this blog aimed at you, you might get over sensitive too. I’m a white straight guy, so I personally haven’t had to deal with discrimination, but I imagine that if I had a lot of this vile crap slung at me my whole life I might get a little testy as well. Not to mention the physical attacks that do actually happen…I think it’s a mistake to take the arguement that those who don’t have equal rights are just whiners and are trying to ruin us. The other groups we have discriminated on, and later regretted, made those same statements.

You keep saying that calling this about equality is dumb and that the gay marriage movement wants to be “better than everyone else”. That you don’t get that they actually want equality, because they are treated lesser than everyone else currently, is the problem. If you don’t want them to have more rights than the rest of us, can we at least give them the same rights the rest of us have and lets go from there?

You say its petty, but to me that is missing the value and desire for marriage.

You keep calling gay marriage supporters a “hate group”. Do you know any gay people…actually friends with them? There are extremes in any group, but I’ve known several gay people who, aside from who they lay down next to at night, are no different than anyone else I know. They go to work every day, manage teams of people, pay their taxes, raise their kids, etc. The only problem is they can’t make sure the kids are cared for if the “parent” dies because their partner doesn’t get posession of them like in a normal marriage. That doesn’t seem right for the child, and it seems like something the religious would care about resolving (since they can’t outlaw people having kids).

Jack

Apr 6, 2009 - 7:34 am 66. Jack:

#63 LynnS – So we agree that this is a civil marriage discussion and not a religious one, great. To that end, why should two people of the same gender who live together, raise kids together, pay their taxes together, not have the same rights as two people of differing genders? It’s the definition of equality. Why does one taxpayer get a benefit another one doesn’t? And I’m not talking about the benefit of calling it a marriage. I’m talking about the many civil benefits like transfer of assets, custody of children, hospital visitation rights, etc. etc.

Jack

Apr 6, 2009 - 7:44 am 67. Jack:

#57 Bilgeman – I wasn’t insinuating anything. I was (and still am) making the point that those who hated blacks lost. Those who hate gays will lose. It’s no different. I’m sorry if that upsets you, but that’s democracy for you.

And you talk about it being votes that count and so on. Well, 3 states is a heck of a lot more than looked likely 20 years ago. Rome wasn’t built in a day, but it was built. That the religious right cares more about sex partners than the economy is what continues to hurt the Republican party. Best of luck with that.

And regarding Black Californians, it’s entirely common for a group that has been oppressed to then oppress another group. Over time I expect they will regret their hypocrisy.

Jack

Apr 6, 2009 - 7:54 am 68. Jack:

#62 Class Clown – Yes, I think you are paranoid. I can also find websites that think aliens are here and taking over the minds of roaches to scare us in restaurants. That don’t make it so, and it don’t make it likely.

Quit worrying about the fringe and trying to use it as an excuse to not make rational judgements.

Besides, by not allowing gay marriage, in a sense you are redefining family. Two parents with kids, but they can’t be a legal family. Not to mention that these people want to be a family, but you don’t want to let them. For someone who seems to value family, you don’t want it as an option for certain people. They want to make families, and you don’t want to let them…hmmm, are you anti-family? Are you trying to subvert our society???

Jack

Apr 6, 2009 - 8:02 am 69. Bilgeman:

#65 Jack:
“So you don’t like people teaching your kids how to be gay, ok fair enough.”

No, Jack, NOT “fair enough”! That is the point behind the whole issue.
That is one aspect of the “Trojan Horse” that Class Clown is talking about.

See, Jack, if homosexuality is given the State Stamp of Approval, then how are you going to keep them out of the schools?

To even attempt to do so will be decried as “bigotry” and “discrimination”.

It won’t be “Fair enough”…your children will have an openly homosexual teacher with license to recruit bedmates, (present and future), at a time when adolescents are having enough issues about sexuality to deal with as it is.

Haven’t you ever asked yourself that if Homosexual marriage is the camel’s nose, what does the REST of the camel look like?
It’s about protected and unfettered access to children…don’t you get it?

If homosexuality is genetic, they would have become extinct by now, since breeding and heredity is problematic.
Ergo, there must be SOME component of choice, and for them to continue to exist, they HAVE to recruit.

The fact of the matter is that nobody’s sexual orientation has any place in a classroom environment, and State efforts at “Sexual Edumacation”, involving the simple mechanics of biological reproduction have been utter failures,(if their purpose was indeed to prevent unwanted teen pregnancies).

Apr 6, 2009 - 8:04 am 70. momof3:

” The only problem is they can’t make sure the kids are cared for if the “parent” dies because their partner doesn’t get posession of them like in a normal marriage. That doesn’t seem right for the child, and it seems like something the religious would care about resolving (since they can’t outlaw people having kids).”

Gee, I imagine if they were smart, they’d handle this like hetero people who marry others who already have kids. IN other words-ADOPT THE KID. Have a will or trust. Every civil benefit you have listed for marriage is available to most anyone by simply filling out some forms. If you are too lazy to do that, you will never manage marriage. So the argument for civil unions is pretty much null and void, as they are already available.

As for whoever said they pay more in taxes than single people after they were married, you aren’t good at taxes. Marrieds get a higher deductions. Or, if combined income pushes you too high, you can file separately. At no point would you ever HAVE to pay higher taxes than a single person.

And no one yet from the other side has addressed the fact that marriage is supposed to benefit society, not the other way around.

Apr 6, 2009 - 8:19 am 71. LynnS:

#66 Jack

Your argument is false and that is not what THIS argument is about and you very well know it. At least you have stopped the insults pretending that any who are against redefining marriage wish evil upon homosexuals.

This argument is about the REDEFINITION of marriage, and I am against it. The definition of marriage as a man and a woman becoming husband and wife should not be changed. That, in my opinion is what many activist want. They want the meaning of marriage to be changed to mean two adults, such as a man and man, and woman and woman.

The Iowa court was saying go ahead and affirm the meaning of marriage and we’ll call in unconstitutional. This court wants to change the meaning of marriage and this court and others think THAT is constitutional. I don’t think it is. It is unconstitutional in my opinion to change the meaning of words to suit what others wish. The court and the activists are playing word games.

Apr 6, 2009 - 8:30 am 72. G Alston:

#69 — It won’t be “Fair enough”…your children will have an openly homosexual teacher with license to recruit bedmates, (present and future), at a time when adolescents are having enough issues about sexuality to deal with as it is.

You can’t be turned gay. You’re either gay or you aren’t, and you typically know this before puberty. You knew by then that you weren’t gay. Works both ways.

Apr 6, 2009 - 8:41 am 73. Jack:

#69 Bilgeman – Um, the same way we keep people from teaching religion in our schools. Interestingly, the same way we control how sex-ed is taught in schools.

If you actually think that gay people are just itching to start converting people/kids then you have bought in to the histeria and I guess we are done talking. This sounds like extremist blather, frankly. I don’t condone the extremist actions/language on the other side either but if you continue to make arguments about the fraction of a percent and not the majority percent, then I guess we should lock everyone in Texas up because one of them is probably a looney as a toon mass murderer.

What you are arguing is that we can’t let gays exist because they could become teachers and touch children. That’s so far off the topic of discussion it’s crazy. First, they are gay, not pedophiles. There is a difference, I would think you would know that (and if you don’t, just say so and we can stop talking about all of this).

And have you ever taken a biology class? Your knowledge of heredity is quite flawed. My parents don’t like cheese, but I do. Is liking cheese a recessive gene that skips generations? I didn’t choose to like cheese, I just do…it’s madness! Not to mention the insanity of “choosing” to be gay. If you disagree, try it for a weekend and let me know how it works for you.

As to the camels nose issue, I couldn’t care less what the rest of “gay” looks like. If two people want to play bump bump in their bedroom and pay their taxes and raise kids and have a dog named Spot I really don’t care. You seem to think that gays are organizing in rainbow colored para-military camps so they can scoop up all of our kids and go off to Butt-Sex island (which they acquired secretly after getting a trillion dollar grant from Obama). That is why you seem to care about what the rest of gay looks like, whereas I am rational and understand that just because we allow gay marriage, we don’t necessarily need to approve of charter boat trips to that island for the kiddies. But maybe that’s just me.

Jack

Apr 6, 2009 - 8:44 am 74. Jack:

#71 LynnS – If I have to use harsh words and “insults” as you call them to defend human/civil rights I’ll still be able to sleep at night. But your concern is noted.

And no, to YOU this is what the discussion is about. But it isn’t that to everyone, including gays. Since this is a civil issue, we don’t need to call it marriage. Let’s be real…they live together, they have kids, etc. The only thing you are whining about is the name that is put on it and prohibiting them from the civil benefits.

Don’t worry about the “many activists” for two seconds and stop assuming the worst. Can you give anything to the other side or are you completely intractable? What if they get all the civil benefits but we don’t call them married or united or pals or anything, would that be ok? Do you want to not allow people of the same sex to legally have children? Are you completely unwilling to do anything for them? If so, then you probably aren’t defending marriage, you are against gays. That’s ok, it’s a free country and it’s a pretty common thing, but your issue is larger than just marriage and I think you should recognize that (and I don’t mean here on this blog, I just mean in your head).

Jack

Apr 6, 2009 - 8:51 am 75. Bilgeman:

#72G.Alston:
“You can’t be turned gay. You’re either gay or you aren’t, and you typically know this before puberty. You knew by then that you weren’t gay. Works both ways.”

It does, huh?

Care to explain bisexuality, then?

And while you’re at it, could you please direct me to the convention of the formerly homosexual who have gone straight?
THAT particular door only seems to swing one way…from straight to gay.

Look, you’re stating something as an empirical fact that hasn’t been proven, and may never be proven, that people are “born gay”.

Until it IS definitively proven, you’re advocating that society proceed from what may be a false basis.

None too smart.

If you “believe” that homosexuality is %100 determined genetically, then all that you are doing is shoving YOUR particular morality based on YOUR subjective belief system, down everyone else’s throat.

And folks won’t have that.

Apr 6, 2009 - 9:00 am 76. Jack:

#70 momof3 – You should do your homework a little. Seriously. Take 30 minutes and do some research into the civil benefits that aren’t available to gay couples with children. You’ll find out for example that a kid who has a mother can’t be adopted by an unmarried person…so the other mother can’t adopt the kid because she can’t marry the other parent. Once the blood mother dies, anyone in the world can challenge a claim on “ownership” of the child. They are often successful, but even if the kid was raised by two moms for 17 years, the law doesn’t protect that relationship…unless you are straight…because how you have sex is what should govern who raises a child…

If you die, your husband gets the money as well as the kids. If a gay person dies, no will or trust in the world will get his or her money to their partner without having it cut in half with taxes. Again, do some research before you pretend you know that the other side has no merits.

Seriously, if you actually care about this issue at all, go look at the other side of the issue to at least understand why they want what they want.

And while we are on taxes, you are wrong there too. They call it a marriage penalty because, well, it exists. Married filing separately will cost you more unless you meet a few specific criteria (i.e. high medical bills, student loans, child support, etc.). If you both make roughly equivalent salaries, filing jointly will save you money, but you will still pay more than two unmarried people. Trust me, my wife and I got creamed every year because we both have good salaries. I didn’t invent the marriage penalty…look it up.

Jack

Apr 6, 2009 - 9:05 am 77. Sin Tax:

Can some of you lonely Liberals marry your sheep too?

Apr 6, 2009 - 9:06 am 78. Jack:

#77 Sin Tax – That oft used bit of trip has been covered several times here. It was a dumb argument all those times too. Can you carry a bazooka through the grocery store? Can the FBI set up an office in my bedroom without a warrant to hear what I’m talking about? Can we actually do nothing BUT pray in schools? See, we can go to silly extremes with all of the laws you like too.

Jack

Apr 6, 2009 - 9:30 am 79. friedfish2718:

Same-sex marriage (SSM) proponents say that homosexuality is not equivalent to bestiality (zoophilia) since one party cannot give consent. Wrong. Pet owners already show a degree of zoophilia. A cat purrs? Said cat consents (purring is a voluntary act). A cat scratches you? Said cat does not give consent. Recently an asian man was stomped to death by a cow he was
trying to copulate. Was the cow expressing something?

SSM proponents say since homosexuality occurs among other species it should be considered normal; well, interspecies sex occurs also.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html

Bestiality should than be considered equal to homosexuality. Shouldn’t humans participate as fully as possible with the Evolution process?

SSM proponents say that homosexuality is not a choice. Well, bestiality is not a choice. SSM proponents look to Europe for inspiration on social and political matters: Austrian lawyer Eberhart Theuer went to court to get a particular chimpanzee declared a person. Mr Theuer lost the case. But there will be more of these lawsuits.

The US has their own advocate (well australian born) for zoophilia: Peter Singer of Princeton University.

Apr 6, 2009 - 10:10 am 80. LynnS:

#74 Jack

“The only thing you are whining about is the name that is put on it and prohibiting them from the civil benefits.”

What? Whining? I am debating the meaning of the word ‘marriage’. I am saying the meaning should not be changed because some group wants it to be changed.

“Don’t worry about the “many activists” for two seconds and stop assuming the worst.”

YOU began the assuming and credited those against redefining marriage as having evil intentions against homosexuals.

If you want to debate whether the man, man, and woman, woman, relationships should have benefits and protections under the law that is fine but I won’t debate it now in this forum. That is a distraction to what THIS debate is about, which is activists and judges redefining marriage to mean other than a man and woman becoming husband and wife.

I really don’t know how many times I can say the same thing. You just keep throwing other arguments into the discussion that distract from what the country is facing with a judicial system that is playing word games, in my opinion, to cause confusion. I also believe that changing the meaning of marriage will cause further confusion, and it is unnecessary to do so in order for other groups to gain rights and protections.

Apr 6, 2009 - 10:56 am 81. Jack:

#79 friedfish – That was a long way to go to try to turn homosexuality into beastiality. Once again, that is pointless and way off topic.

Jack

Apr 6, 2009 - 11:30 am 82. rnw:

Here’s something to think about.

If there is a genetic basis for homosexuality and the “gay gene” can be mapped.

How will homosexual activists respond to parents aborting children with the “gay gene”?

And with genetic therapy, how will they respond to parents manipulating their children’s genome and eliminating the “gay gene”?

Apr 6, 2009 - 11:48 am 83. RV:

“What? Whining? I am debating the meaning of the word ‘marriage’. I am saying the meaning should not be changed because some group wants it to be changed.”

And there you have it. The top reason why the State should in no way be in the business of marriage. I agree, the definition, as described by your particular religious group, should not be changed for your particular religious group. The state, however, cannot discriminate becasue of religious doctrine, and mut give the same rights euqually to all parties. If the state recognizes marriage, it must do so for 100% of the population, without any sort of discrimination. Because a large population does not want this, the state must drop the use of the word marriage, and should then only recognize signed contracts between willing parties.

Apr 6, 2009 - 11:54 am 84. Jack:

#80 LynnS – I knew you’d object to the word ‘whining’, I should have changed it. My apologies.

You think this thread is about activist judges, but specifically it is about judges in relation to gay marriage. Ergo, this thread is also about gay marriage. Fundamentally, I don’t think the judges are “activists.” They did their job, interpreted the law, and the Legislature can modify the state constitution to make equality not a part of the document any more. Problem solved.

You have to realize their verdict was unanimous. Meaning the ruling had the support of the Chief Justice and the most Senior justice, both of whom were put on the Court by a Republican. You are quick to call them activists just because you disagree with them. And have they been activists all their lives and in every other opinion they have ruled on, or just the ones about gay marriage?

But since you want to talk about judges, do tell what makes them activists? How can I tell the difference between an activist ruling or a fair one? Is there some way to tell other than whether gays rights are involved?

The legislature passed a ban on gay marriage and the executive branch enforced it. Several couples took advantage of their constitutional rights to challenge the law as a violation of the State Constitution. It was the courts obligation to review it, and it was found to be an illegal law that was in contradiction to the Constitution.

What about all of that was “activist”? In fact, one could say the only thing “activist” about all of this was the legislature passing a law that violated the Constitution. Which would mean you are the activist, not me…

Jack

Apr 6, 2009 - 12:00 pm 85. momof3:

“#70 momof3 – You should do your homework a little. Seriously. Take 30 minutes and do some research into the civil benefits that aren’t available to gay couples with children. You’ll find out for example that a kid who has a mother can’t be adopted by an unmarried person…so the other mother can’t adopt the kid because she can’t marry the other parent. Once the blood mother dies, anyone in the world can challenge a claim on “ownership” of the child. They are often successful, but even if the kid was raised by two moms for 17 years, the law doesn’t protect that relationship…unless you are straight…because how you have sex is what should govern who raises a child…

If you die, your husband gets the money as well as the kids. If a gay person dies, no will or trust in the world will get his or her money to their partner without having it cut in half with taxes. Again, do some research before you pretend you know that the other side has no merits.

Seriously, if you actually care about this issue at all, go look at the other side of the issue to at least understand why they want what they want.”

That’s funny, here in Austin I casually know several lesbian couples where one mom gave birth and one adopted the kid. Living trusts knock out the death tax penalties. Medical and other Power Of Attorneys solve a whole host of hospital visit/legal issues as well. So, as I said……put a little work into solving your own problem before pitching hissy fits over a word that you have no need to change.

Apr 6, 2009 - 12:10 pm 86. David:

It’s called interpreting the constitution. That’s what courts do. You’re welcome for the 2nd grade civics lesson.

Apr 6, 2009 - 12:14 pm 87. Omar:

Class Clown #62 and Jack #68:

Class Clown is anything but paranoid, Jack. I posted a link earlier to a helpful Blogpost that contains very strong documentation – and the quotes are from mainstream SSM leadership, not “fringe websites.” Here it is again:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/changing-the-definition-of-mar.html#more

Apr 6, 2009 - 12:23 pm 88. Jack:

#82 rnw – We don’t have a litmus test today for who can have an abortion. If you think gay is a disease, I guess you can kill an otherwise healthy fetus. Some people think “gay” is so bad they kill full grown adults who have it.

Of course, the religious right is the group with the problem with gays, so they’ll have to just live with their gay children since they don’t believe in abortion. It’s as if they value life before it’s born, but should that life not turn out the way they like, they are suddenly willing to take away their rights as adult.

Jack

Apr 6, 2009 - 12:31 pm 89. Jack:

#85 momof3 – You can continue to try to obfuscate the point if you like, but trying to deny the existance of any value of being married aside from spiritual is ignoring the honst (and frankly obvious truth). I would have assumed you had more respect for marriage…

Even if I buy your argument that if they just create 300 legal documents that they can match marriage (which I don’t in any way, by the way) then my question to you is, why? Why should they have to jump all of those hurdles to protect their families? How does that make your “marriage” better? At the root of it, you are being at best selfish and at worst mean-spirited.

And you will continue to not address the civil side, simply because you can’t. There IS no good reason to prevent them from the civil benefits like the rest of us taxpayers, and you know it. You are just too frightened to be rational and admit the value of any of our points in this topic because you are afraid we’ll ruin Christianity or something. I’ll ask it again, do you think gays are entitled to anything that the rest of us are?

Jack

Apr 6, 2009 - 12:39 pm 90. Mike J.:

50 years from now, my grandkids are going to ask me why, when I was young, did conservatives think it acceptable to oppress homosexuals who were just trying to get the same rights that everyone else had. And I’ll say that’s funny, because when I was your age I used to ask my parents why conservatives thought it was acceptable to oppress blacks who were just trying to get the same rights that everyone else had. And the answer to both questions remains the same: because conservatives as a movement are racist, ignorant, hateful totalitarianists who belive that a 2000 year old book that most of them can’t even read gives them the authority to oppress people who are different.

Apr 6, 2009 - 12:48 pm 91. LynnS:

#83 R
” I agree, the definition, as described by your particular religious group, should not be changed for your particular religious group.”

Scratching head, my particular religious group? Do you mean my particular opinion? Marriage is the institution where a man and a women become husband and wife. I didn’t make that up and I didn’t invent it. That is THE MEANING. The courts and the activists want to change the meaning. Dropping the word doesn’t change the meaning. Not everyone has the legal right to marry, but you know that, and that does not further your argument, that because 100% of people who want to marry can’t, the government should no longer recognize the institution or the meaning should be changed to include other groups, or word changed to “willing parties”. There is nothing else I can say to that.

#84 Jack

I suppose I should not speak for the topic and say that it is my opinion the argument is about “marriage” and it’s meaning and that is should not be changed because a group of people don’t like the meaning so want it changed. I am talking about a group of judges who say the meaning of the word marriage is unconstitutional because it does not include other group’s relationships such as men and men,or women and women. I don’t think that judges should have the power to change the meanings of words and I think it is unconstitutional.

You are pointing out that it was a majority opinion which is strange because when there is a majority vote by private citizens there are those who say that that means nothing. You are not saying anything meaningful by pointing out that it was Republican appointed justices because that does not necessarily mean they will be conservative or vote a particular party line.

As far as I know Iowa affirmed that marriage was between one man and one woman, and it was THAT legislation the courts ruled against as unconstitutional. For the last time, I will affirm that I don’t think the meaning of the word marriage should be changed to include other groups and I believe that for the judicial system to do so is unconstitutional and not what they are appointed to do.

Your argument is the legislature should not be allowed to ban “gay marriage”. I am saying that the judicial branch should not be able to change the meaning of marriage to include other groups.

Apr 6, 2009 - 1:44 pm 92. G Alston:

#91 — Scratching head, my particular religious group? Do you mean my particular opinion? Marriage is the institution where a man and a women become husband and wife. I didn’t make that up and I didn’t invent it. That is THE MEANING.

As has been pointed out to you many times, the Iowa judges didn’t find the term marriage to mean that at all, therefore — YES, YOU ARE MAKING THIS UP.

Apr 6, 2009 - 1:55 pm 93. Jack:

#91 LynnS – I didn’t say majority vote, I said unanimous vote…a very different thing. And you are right, we don’t know if they are conservative or not. But then again, you shouldn’t presuppose that dems or libs are to blame for all of the radical activist judges that are sitting where they are today. Looks like you guys need yet another litmus test for your judicial appointments.

And for my last time, you still didn’t explain what makes a judge an “activist” and you also didn’t answer the question about civil rights, regardless of what it is called. Marriage is a man and a woman and “Sinful Liasons” are for gays, that fix everything? Relgions don’t get involved and marriage isn’t changed and the gays get their civil benefits, are we happy now?

Jack

Apr 6, 2009 - 2:36 pm 94. Bilgeman:

#73 Jack:
“f you actually think that gay people are just itching to start converting people/kids then you have bought in to the histeria and I guess we are done talking.”

Pedophilia is already a problem in a heterosexual school environment, and this is without a vocal and high-profile political lobby that advocates heterosexuality.

This isn’t paranoia, just simply observing that if homosexuals are indeed “just like the rest of us”, then they’re as likely to have as many short-eyed defectives as heteros…but they have an advocacy group.

“You seem to think that gays are organizing in rainbow colored para-military camps so they can scoop up all of our kids and go off to Butt-Sex island”

And you accuse ME of blathering?

A para-military camp?
Not likely. A seminary however, might be more near the mark.

How many of the clergy pedophilia scandals that engulfed the Catholic Church involved homosexual pedophilia, chum?

Most of them.

There it is…you want to deal with it, or you want to keep looking at pretty pictures and listening to fairy tales?

Apr 6, 2009 - 2:57 pm 95. LynnS:

#92 G. Alston

Spin my words the way you want but yes the Iowa judges want to change the meaning of the word marriage to include other group’s couplings other than one man and one woman.

#93 Jack

Pardon me for saying majority rather than unanimous, but it doesn’t much change my point.

Please point out that I presupposed that dems or libs are to blame for radical activist judges. I have known for a long time that judge appointments aren’t guarantees of party line opinions. Never said it.

Sorry, I won’t discuss anything else except the redefinition of marriage. You keep trying to put words in my mouth like ’sinful liaisons’ and religion and condescending and ‘are we happy now? but it is a useless provocation because I won’t take the bait.

Apr 6, 2009 - 3:24 pm 96. Jack:

#95 LynnS – Sigh. You said your point was that some people think a majority vote doesn’t mean much. That I said unanimous changes things…I think a unanimous vote pretty much speaks for itself.

Sadly, you just don’t read what I write. I never said you presupposed that dems or libs are to blame. I said you shouldn’t, not “you did”. In fact I actually agreed with you about whether or not we knew if they were conservative appointees.

I also did not put Sinful Liasons in your mouth…I put them in my mouth. You clearly have no answer to my question so you keep ducking it, which can go on all day. It was a simple question.

I’ll just take your dodging as a clear indicator that you simply don’t want gays to have the civil rights and it has nothing to do with protecting marriage.

Jack

Apr 6, 2009 - 3:50 pm 97. Class Clown:

Well, then Jack, our next topic will be the degree to which yesterday’s fringe left is today’s mainstream left.

Apr 6, 2009 - 3:57 pm 98. Jack:

#94 Bilgeman – So you think that the gay advocacy group is going to branch out to defending gay pedophilia once they have solved the current gay crisis? Clearly a poorly thought out (paranoia driven?) conclusion to reach.

That you then move into clergy example, well talk about a mega-powerful advocacy group…the Catholic church for God’s sake (pun intended)!!! That advocacy group ignored their miscreants, but when forced into the spotlight, they were condemned and there was no advocacy. So, you just made my point.

And as to why there are more boys being touched by priests, I don’t know. Maybe it’s because gay men with strong religious convictions are more likely to become clergy and embrace (or try to) celibacy rather than act on their drives. When they succumb to their lust it’s with a boy. Sounds simple to me.

Jack

Apr 6, 2009 - 4:01 pm 99. Class Clown:

no. 68, Jack, continued.

And, for that matter, the modern left isn’t relying on popular movements to achieve its ends anymore anyways. It uses the courts, and it uses the entertainment media. Since both seem more and more sympathetic all the time, then ergo, what the fringe wants definitely does matter.

And even where the “mainstream” left isn’t agreeing with the radicals, they aren’t resisting them either.

Apr 6, 2009 - 4:07 pm 100. Bilgeman:

Well, it seems that our moderator may have an agenda of his or her own, since at least 3 or 4 of my responses have gone into the ether.

If you can’t deal with the debate, silence the opposition.

Apr 6, 2009 - 9:51 pm 101. Bud:

I find it interesting how gay activists are always trying to lock anti-gay marriage gays in the closet. Why? I guess their version of “tolerance” is intolerance, in black and white.

Apr 7, 2009 - 4:52 am 102. Jack:

Given the slant on this site, I would think it more likely for my posts to disappear than yours. I’m afraid I can’t start dancing down the vast gay conspiracy theory path with you on this. There are quite a few posts opposing mine thus far.

Jack

Apr 7, 2009 - 8:43 am 103. Bilgeman:

#102 Jack:
“Given the slant on this site, I would think it more likely for my posts to disappear than yours.”

I guess it depends on the moderator. You were able to get the “N”-word by, but I couldn’t get “perverted” or “deviant” through, while the context I was using them in was similar to yours.

Apr 7, 2009 - 9:00 am 104. Jack:

Well, you did just get them through, although arguably not in the original context. That you tried to get them through tho, given the context of this thread implies where you were going with it, so just by saying those words you probably said enough.

Jack

Apr 7, 2009 - 9:36 am 105. LynnS:

#96 Jack

“I’ll just take your dodging as a clear indicator that you simply don’t want gays to have the civil rights and it has nothing to do with protecting marriage.”

Oh yes you are putting words in my mouth. You’ll get silence back, nothing more. Don’t put words in my silence.

Apr 7, 2009 - 9:45 am 106. Jack:

#105 LynnS – I’m glad we agree. It was painful getting there, but it’s plenty for you to think about until this type of thread comes up again.

Jack

Apr 7, 2009 - 10:30 am 107. momof3:

Not everyone can marry. We’ve been over this. And even more people can’t marry who they love. So how, then, is gay marriage a civil right? It’s not a right given everyone, it’s a responsibility and a priviledge given by society to people forming the unions that typically benefit society in larger ways.

Apr 7, 2009 - 11:24 am 108. Jack:

#107 momof3 – I don’t think you’ve been over it with me…who can’t marry exactly (assuming male and female)? And why can’t you marry someone you love (provided they agree)? If we are talking about forced marriages, well that’s hardly not the case we are discussing here.

And as taxpayers, they should be entitled to the same civil benefits the rest of us are. That’s where equal rights come in. Remove the civil benefits to straight couples and I have no more problems.

And it is a right as far as I know in that it would be illegal for the government to disallow me from marrying a willing woman, and the government would also not be allowed to withhold said civil benefits. This is where the inequity of two citizen taxpayers becomes fairly obvious in my mind.

And society benefits from stable families, so it is in our own self-interest that we encourage it. Why do we want gay families (that already exist whether married or not) to be less stable? How exactly does that benefit society (since you are making this a ‘whats good for society’ argument)?

And by the way, second parent adoption (same sex) is only legal in parts of Texas and outright illegal in many other states.

Jack

Apr 7, 2009 - 11:40 am 109. Jack:

Oh, and I consider it odd that we allow serial rapists who are in prison to get married via civil as well as religious processes (for the benefit of society) but not gay people. Explain the benefit to society of a person who will spend the rest of their life in a cage for committing unspeakable horrors getting married to someone they met on the Internet?

I don’t mean to take it to an extreme to make the point, but it’s a true situation nonetheless. We don’t seem to care who gets married (or why) as long as they have opposing chromosomes.

Jack

Apr 7, 2009 - 11:43 am 110. friedfish2718:

In the USA, the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness is a defensive right: the State
has no authority in interfering in your pursuit. This right is not offensive: you do not
have the right to force the State to give its stamp of approval of your pursuit.

Homosexuals, heterosexuals, and other sexual fetishers have same right to pursue their
happiness with no State interference. All current anti-sodomy, anti-zoophilia
laws should be abrogated. Proper Civil Rights are defensive rights.

Marriage is not a civil right despite the opinions of some mal-educated judges.
The USA government is supposed to be a Constitutional one: legislature makes the
laws, not the judges.

Apr 7, 2009 - 11:58 am 111. Jack:

As with the Boy Scouts, exclusive groups cannot receive state funding or state benefits. Marriage is a state sponsored institution that needs to follow the same rules as long as it is taxpayer funded.

Jack

Apr 7, 2009 - 12:28 pm 112. Jack:

And while we are on the topic, you now need to worry about activist legislatures.

“Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage. The state legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. ”

And as a little bit of icing, DC voted today to recognize gay unions from other states.

Sorry. Pretty soon there will be activist Governors and you’ll not have the support of any branch of government.

#57 Bilgeman – It was three states 50 posts ago, now it’s 4. It’s been a good week for my side

Jack

Apr 7, 2009 - 1:59 pm 113. momof3:

“I don’t think you’ve been over it with me…who can’t marry exactly (assuming male and female)? And why can’t you marry someone you love (provided they agree)? If we are talking about forced marriages, well that’s hardly not the case we are discussing here.”

Depending on the state, people with certain diseases (std’s) can not marry (that blood test thing) certain degreed relatives can not marry no matter how willing, people judged mentally incompetent can not marry no matter what their personal feelings are on the matter, and people below the age of consent (which varies by state and through recent history) can not marry. Why can a 14 year old in OK marry a 40 year old pedofile, but they have to wait till she’s 18 in TX? Oh, right, states rights. I mean, doesn’t tx discriminate against the poor May/December people? Marriage is their civil right!!

Maybe I really love my brother (I’ll feed the TX stereotype a minute). Why can’t I marry him if we both agree, what with birth control and abortions being so easily obtained? Isn’t that a civil rights discrimination, according to your arguments?

Apr 7, 2009 - 2:26 pm 114. Jack:

#113 momof3 – Ok, but mentally incompetent speaks to willingness/judgement and thus far we haven’t declared being Gay as a mental illness legally. Age speaks to the same thing and can (as far as I know in all states) be allowed with parental consent. Which shouldn’t rule out adult gays (or juvenile gays with parental consent). Gays haven’t as of yet been declared less comepetent than an 18 year old. Incest is for the physical health of the family (as with the STD argument) which also doesn’t apply to gays. (Is the STD thing still around? I never got blood tested…I guess it might be in some states).

The problem is that those laws are on the books to prevent physical health concerns and capacity for judgement. I’m not saying there aren’t good reasons to disallow marriage, but I don’t see why gender should be such a reason.

I do however get where you are going with that, but those laws are designed to protect the couple getting married, not the general public. This is quite arguably different. Yes, you can claim that gay people are hurting each other if they get married, but that’s a hard sell when we (again) let all sorts of convicts, felons, abusers, addicts, congressmen, homeless, serial divorcees, etc, etc. get married with no one trying to take that away. We have laws regarding phsyical health and mental capacity based on what you listed, not on mental health or if they “should” get married.

Thoughts?

P.S. and just in case, this doesn’t have anything to do with kids because they can still have kids whether or not they get married.

Jack

Apr 7, 2009 - 2:54 pm 115. Someone75:

Momof3:

Isn’t your *true* objection one of morality? Isn’t your entire opposition to gay marriage based on your Christian perspective?

I am a Christian and my views on homosexuality are not “politically correct,” as they say. I’m not one to champion gay rights or anything close to that. However, I don’t think we can legally prohibit gay marriage. Where in the Bible does it say that the government should enforce God’s will?

It’s a tough issue, but it seems that there are a lot of moral judgments made by Christians like myself, and those are most certainly against God’s word of love.

Apr 7, 2009 - 3:45 pm 116. one of my own:

15. LynnS: . . . “I think that this ruling is an indication that the United States Legislature through the Congress needs to step in and create a Constitutional Amendment affirming the definition of ‘Marriage’.”

I’M WITH LYNN! AND WHILE WE’RE AT IT, LET’S AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO DEFINE “IGNORANT.”

Apr 7, 2009 - 4:17 pm 117. momof3:

I am christian, albeit a slacker one. I actually am not ant-gay although plenty of people here seem to think I am. Yes, the bible says it’s a sin. It also condemns other common things like gluttony and greed far, far more often. Given that we are a nation of rich fat-asses, I don’t know that condemning gays on the sin aspect is worth the time, and I sure don’t think it’s worse than other sins. And for a long time I was pro-gay-marriage. I didn’t see how letting them marry, sin or no, hurt anyone but themselves. In fact, this is my first election cycle as a conservative, and I admit I do have all the fervor of the newly converted.

My objections ARE that marriage has always been a structure to benefit society in very concrete ways that often did not benefit the individuals involved. I do think allowing gays to marry will change things greatly. I can’t say how. The few ideas we can come up with are widely poo-poo’d by the other side. Much like liberals who wanted to extend welfare benefits to single moms poo-poo’d the idea that women would ever have a kid just for those benefits, or choose single motherhood over marriage. Yet 40 years later, here we are, and those exact things DID happen to an unimaginable degree. The inner cities and black communities have been permanently altered to their detriment by our eliminating this “discrimination” in welfare. By adopting gay marriage, we WILL be permanently altering society in ways we can’t necessarily foresee. History has shown us that huge social policy changes always have huge impacts, and rarely in really good ways on the macro scale. And no one has yet made a decent argument as to how thousands of years of civilization have gotten it so very, very wrong in their eyes.

Apr 7, 2009 - 6:21 pm 118. Emphasis:

I wrote this regarding one of the consequences of the changes that have come about in our society over the last twenty years, I hope everyone start thinking about the law of unintended consequences before dramatic decisions are made.

I believe that before legislation regarding the adoption of children by homosexuals is considered, there are questions that as a society we should insist the homosexual community answers. Questions like:

1.- What explanation do you give these children when they ask why did they come to be adopted, and why they don’t have a “conventional” adoptive mother or father?

2.- When you speak to them, do you refer to heterosexual couples as the norm, or do you encourage them to follow on your footsteps?

3.- They say that a parent’s love for their children is the most unselfish love there is. Parents normally want the best for their young, they want for them a better life than the one they led; they normally try not to place their children in situations in which they are going to be embarrassed, teased, or made uncomfortable. If love is what drives your desire to adopt a child, how do you justify putting them through spiritual and emotional confusion throughout their lives?

4.- How do you feel about a religious upbringing?

There are also questions that we as a society must answer. Questions like:

1.- Is adoption a right? Is it a privilege subject to specific requirements, and having as its main goal the best interest of the children?

2.- There are countless stories of heterosexual couples that have gone to Latin America, to Russia, to Eastern Europe, or even to China to adopt a child. Why have they had to do so? What can we do to change this? Should we first try to solve this situation before resorting to homosexual adoptions as a solution?

3.- Should we re-examine the nature of our society based upon the fact that we live in one that denies adoption to thousands of heterosexual parents, while allowing homosexuals to adopt? Why should homosexuality be acceptable, but bigamy, and polygamy not? Are these less natural relationships than those of homosexuals?

4- Should we revisit our position as a society with respect to laws dealing with prostitution and consensual adult incest among others, in addition to the ones mentioned above?

5.- Do we expect children reared in a homosexual environment to later in life function normally in a heterosexual relationship?

6.- Should we as a society make it mandatory that children reared in a homosexual environment receive special training in the way of heterosexual couples? Should this training be neutral, or should the heterosexual way of life be encouraged or shown to be the preferred or normal way of mankind? Who should pay for the cost of this training?

7.- What traumas, if any, are we fostering on these children?

8.- What responsibility if any will homosexual couples that separate have with regards to the child society has placed in their care? What rules if any is society to dictate with regards to the children of heterosexual couples when either the husband or the wife chooses to embrace homosexuality?

9.- To what extent by allowing homosexuals to adopt children are we forcing society, for the love and welfare of those children, to preach and accept homosexuality as a normal behavior?

This is not a simple matter, the only objective must be to help the child, as a society we have a duty to make the right decision.

Apr 7, 2009 - 6:34 pm 119. LynnS:

#116 one of my own
“I’M WITH LYNN! AND WHILE WE’RE AT IT, LET’S AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO DEFINE IGNORANT”

HEY! I DON’T KNOW ABOUT THAT one of my own PLEASE EXCUSE MY ‘IGNORANCE’ nudge, nudge BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW THE WORD IGNORANT IS DEFINED JUST AS THE WORD MARRIED IS DEFINED.

NOW SINCE THE COURTS SEEM TO DESIRE THAT IT BE RE-DEFINED (MARRIAGE) TO INCLUDE OTHER COUPLINGS IT SEEMS THAT THE CONSTITUTION COULD BE AMENDED TO STOP THE COURTS FROM REDEFINING WORDS AT THE WHIM OF GROUPS WHO DON’T LIKE THE DEFINITION OF A WORD, SO GO THROUGH THE COURTS TO CHANGE IT.

WAIT A MINUTE! ISN’T TYPING IN ALL CAPS CONSIDERED SHOUTING AND MANY CONSIDER IT ignorant?

But that’s okay, you probably are not sure what the word IGNORANT means since you need an amendment to DEFINE it. Perhaps the case could be taken up by the judicial branch especially if you or someone else doesn’t like the meaning and want to change it.

BYE! BYE!

Oh sorry! There I go being ignorant.

Bye! Bye!

Apr 7, 2009 - 9:18 pm 120. Marc Malone:

I’m against gay marriage.

That said, I’d like to start by deconstructing the stupid argument about “opening the door”. Polygamy has clear, demonstrable harm to society. Only the better off can afford to marry. In Islamic societies, they allow this, and about 25% of the men cannot find wives, because they are too poor to compete. Sure, this reinforces the breeding of those who are good at making money, but there are other desirable traits out there, too. This creates an imbalance in society with so many unmarriageable men. This leads to war and other such fun activities. It still wouldn’t be allowed.

As to it not being a choice? Bull. In those Islamic societies, homosexuality is rampant, although closeted. It correlates to that 25% unable to marry group. In prison, it nears 100%, of course. Of course it is a choice. Some few are hardwired wrong, but the rest are riding their coattails. It is evolutionarily and religiously impossible for so many to be so defective.

So, we come to the legal argument. Secular marriage is about legal rights, so gays should be allowed to marry, right? Not so fast. If the State provides these rights, but calls them civil unions, the equal protection is satisfied. Calling it marriage would be something else, however. It would be endorsing this alternate lifestyle, and the State should not be giving their Imprimatur to such perversion. Tolerate it, yes. Endorse it, no.

This is what it’s all about. In Holland, where gay marriage is legal, only about 4% of gays get married. Really? After all that hoopla? Yes, it wasn’t about the right to marry. It has always been about normalization of a perverted lifestyle.

But, where’s the harm? Marriage is one of the load-bearing beams of society. One doesn’t mess with it. But, how does equalizing it do harm?

Ann Coulter covered this well in her book “Guilty”. She showed single-motherhood to be the greatest contributor to antisocial behavior. She screwed up by not labelling it correctly. More properly, it is the lack of fatherhood. Dads mete out the discipline. They’re good at it. They are also better at the whole wisdom and guidance thing than women, because they keep it emotionally more simple than do women. When Dad is not involved with the kids, they grow up really screwed up.

Don’t believe me, look at the kids of rich people, when Dad buys them things, instead of giving them love, discipline, and guidance. They become those stereotypical, arrogant, little pricks. In black society, where the institution of marriage has simply been destroyed, the antisocial numbers speak for themselves.

They are brutal numbers. Half of black men will have spent time in jail. Half! 1/3 of all young black men are in jail at any given moment. Are they just genetically dysfunctional, or is it just the lack of fathers? 90% are born out of wedlock. 50% don’t even know who their father is! That number is changing because of DNA, but it doesn’t change the fact that 75% simply have no active father.

When we allow gay marriage, we firther devalue the sacredness, the overarching role of marriage in society. As people treat marriage as less and less desirable or important, society rots. Without marriage as the central role in proper raising of our children, the society is doomed. Kids raised in a proper traditional household grow up to be happy, well-adjusted, productive members of society. We could do with a greater percentage of these individuals, methinks.

Just a little test for you:

Are Liberals/Statists more likely, or less likely, to be successfully married than Conservatives?;

Are Libs/Statists more or less likely to be favoring governmental largesse?;

Are they more or less likely to be receiving said largesse, and therefore not be paying for same?;

Are they more or less likely to support gay marriage?;

For that matter, are they more or less likely to be criminals themselves (like dodging taxes, for example)?;

Are they more or less likely to be churchgoers (and thus, law-abiding)?

Here’s another thought for you: Consider the allegorical Devil, whether you believe in Him or not, where would you place Him on the political spectrum? Would he be Extreme Right or Extreme Left? Test the issues. Abortion? Left. Gay marriage? Left. Larger government/decreased Liberty? Left. Hard/soft on crime? Left. Immorality? Left. Shameless, brazen lies and criminality, a la Obama, Barney Frank, and Company? Left. Issue after issue, He is on the Left, not the Right.

So, where then do you place God, hmm? You may not believe, but I would still find it disturbing if I were to find that I share more values in common with the allegorical Devil than with the allegorical God.

No to gay marriage.

Btw, this brouhaha is why Gov. Palin vetoed such a law in AK, because she knew it would be ruled unconstitutional. Mighty smart for such a dumb woman, huh? She knew it would require a constitutional amendment. Maybe she’s not so dumb, after all, huh?

Apr 8, 2009 - 4:53 pm 121. one of my own:

120. Marc Malone . . . “I’m against gay marriage . . . As to it not being a choice? Bull . . . Of course it is a choice. Some few are hardwired wrong, but the rest are riding their coattails. It is evolutionarily and religiously impossible for so many to be so defective.”

Wow, Malvo, you’ve done outdid yourself with this one. I wonder how Karl Rove’s father would have felt about your opinion. Or Dick Cheney’s daughter. Or Newt Gingrich’s sister. Or Lindsay Graham or David Dreier or Mitch McConnell or Patrick Henry. I wonder if those people think it’s a choice. Maybe they should ask the devil. Or maybe they should ask you since you speak for the Horned One. I guess that’s why you’re so quick to equate church attendance with adherence to the law.

Given your certainty, shall I assume you have extensive experience in the gay community? Lots of gay friends? (Don’t worry, we won’t count that one time in the tent after baseball practice.)

Post like yours show how far we have to go before the desperate guilt-ridden repressives finally let go of their fear and embrace humanity. Until then, we have you to thank for sociopathy. I suggest you stay in your trunk (or closet, your choice.)

Apr 8, 2009 - 5:30 pm 122. one of my own:

119. LynnS: . . . “You’re probably are not sure what the word IGNORANT means since you need an amendment to DEFINE it.”

Gee, Lynn, you give me too much credit. I don’t need an amendment. All I need is you.

Apr 8, 2009 - 5:40 pm 123. LynnS:

#122. one of my own

“Gee, Lynn, you give me too much credit.”

No…one of my own… I’ll never give you too much credit, until you earn it of course, and I don’t see that happening any time soon. In fact reading your other posts it is becoming clear that the only thing you might receive credit for, is being ignorant to those who disagree with you, proving you fit the definition quite nicely.

With your insults, accusations and innuendos you have become what you claim to hate. Funny how that happens.

Apr 8, 2009 - 6:32 pm 124. one of my own:

122 Lynn S . . .Do you really not see the irony of your post? Can that be? I think it can.

Apr 8, 2009 - 8:02 pm 125. RightwingHippyChick:

Weird, your position is the same as the envy that socialists have for other people’s money — even if it does not affect them, they just obsess about destroying their way of life, because it irks them that others are enjoying life.

Gay people don’t turn non-gay all if you don’t allow them to formalise their partnerships, in other words, they take absolutely nothing away from anyone else, but whilst you’re sticking your nose in their business, you’re taking away from them. And all that for absolutely no gain, in fact, discouraging people from living in family units and promoting singlehood costs us all dearly.

What is more, *anyone* in this feral world where people no longer manage to have even short-lived relationships — *anyone* who is actually willing to say ‘yes’ to another person and share their life is an asset to our embattled society which more and more is made up of an army of Elanor Rigbys and people who no longer have ties to more than 1-2 people (if lucky) and those are, well, umm, optional, most of the time. Many people have no-one.

Being against marriage just because the couple is homosexual is classic self-hatred.

Apr 9, 2009 - 5:09 am 126. LynnS:

#124 one of my own

your words:

(first post) ignorant. That was just a warm up. (second post) devil, Horned One, you speak for the Horned One, in the tent after baseball practice? (I’m not sure if I want to know what you pictured in your head with that one, but I’m sure you were using it to make a point, right?)

Okay on we go…
desperate, guilt-ridden, repressives, fear, let go and embrace humanity, sociopathy.

And finally….I suggest you stay in your trunk (or closet, your choice)

Those are ‘your’ words in only two posts.

You really don’t see the “irony” of how you have become what you say you hate. Not surprising.

Apr 9, 2009 - 7:25 am 127. one of my own:

I stand by every stinging beautiful word.

Apr 9, 2009 - 8:18 am 128. LynnS:

Of course. When you can’t debate on the issue clearly of whether the definition of a word should or should not be changed, at the whim of the courts or a group of people who don’t like the definition or meaning, then you must resort to name calling, innuendos, and accusations, etc.

And, after your name calling, I still stand by my words.

The definition of Marriage, a man and a woman become husband and wife, should not be changed. I won’t describe them as beautiful, or stinging, just simple and to the point.

And, contrary to what you may think, I’m glad your still standing.

Apr 9, 2009 - 8:42 am 129. Jack:

#125 RightWingHippy Chick – Yes, they worry about gays forming tighter bonds while 40% of all births last year were to unwed mothers (study came out on Tuesday). The issues with marriage go well beyond gays wanting it. They don’t care if half of marriages end in divorce or if the institution of marriage is falling apart anyway, they just don’t want to include those who want to help support it. They are cleaning their house while it is burning down.

And don’t waste your time with LynnS. She refuses to answer anyone’s questions unless she can provide a snarky non-answer. Her only point for this entire thread is “I don’t want the definition of marriage changed”. And that’s fine, but since she clearly has nothing else to offer to the discussion, I don’t know why she doesn’t just stop talking…we got it. She doesn’t want to talk about civil rights/benefits, she doesn’t want to talk about alternatives to what we call it, she doesn’t want to talk about the legislative process, she doesn’t want to talk about how judges got into their seats, she doesn’t want to talk about whether or not gays should have the same rights as other taxpayers, she doesn’t want to talk about whether children of gay couples would benefit from their gay parents being married or not, etc. etc. etc.

Seriously, whether you like what I say or not, at least I respond to people based on what they said or asked. It’s called dialog. And I am snarky too, no doubt, but that isn’t all I say/do. Lynn just snips and pokes at people and then goes off into her spiel about not changing the definition of marriage and saying everyone is trying to put words in her mouth. It’s a broken record. Enough already if you don’t have anything else to add to the discussion!!!

That said, I’ll keep reading her posts because I’ll be amazed if she ever gets deeper in anything than simply scratching the surface and stomping her feet over and over.

Jack

Apr 9, 2009 - 9:13 am 130. LynnS:

#129 Jack

I spoke about what I thought was the attempt to ‘re-define’ the word marriage, and I did not want to distract from my argument. If you took offense, I did not mean it to do so.

Now, I was reading an article in Slate Online that it seems the writers of certain dictionaries are with you and others on this argument. They have for some years been changing the definition of marriage to suit other people.

Here’s the link and it might make you less irritated with me, since it seems your desire is becoming reality.

http://www.slate.com/id/2215628/

Well there you have it.

Apr 9, 2009 - 11:43 am 131. Jack:

#130 LynnS – Honestly, I couldn’t care less about the term. If, for arguments sake, you can leave marriage as it is defined as what you want it to be, can you get behind gays being given the same rights and benefits as traditional married people do? I don’t care what we call the gay unions, or even if we call them anything at all. I can’t argue over wording if we haven’t agreed to the principle…that’s all I’m saying.

I can’t let a child starve because we are disagreeing on the definition of “food” for example…lets feed the kid and worry about what we call that later…

That I can’t get you to look (even glance) past the definition is what is frustrating. If you don’t think they should have the rights under any circumstances, then I’m not going to quibble over terminology as it’s a very far down the list of concerns I have.

Jack

Apr 9, 2009 - 1:01 pm 132. RightwingHippyChick:

I still don’t understand what folks who fear gay marriage (or whatever you want to call it) are threatened by.

I’d also like to say that the ‘definition of marriage’ has changed over time as the centuries went by, men no longer are allowed to beat their wives, women have their own money and property and can decide whom they marry, we also now allow divorce (something I profoundly disagree with btw) and so on — today marriage is very very different to what it was even 20 years ago.

Maybe we need to discuss what we nowadays mean by marriage — it no longer is ’till death us parts’ and divorce is legal and what is nearly as bad, divorce is also a no-fault affair that totally bankrupts the families it happens to, in other words, marriage has been reduced in it’s essence to a ceremonial formality already.

I’m not sure that we’ve that much left to protect here ;(

But yeah, it’s funny to see the traditional enemy of marriage, the left, arguing FOR marriage against the traditional champion of marriage, the right. Something is definitely clashing here at the core values… hmmm.

Apr 9, 2009 - 2:45 pm 133. LynnS:

Jack, I do think that many states are working toward and have given homosexuals certain civil rights, civil benefits, and protections under their laws as are many companies. I just don’t see this argument the way you do, and I think that it ‘IS’ very important for some in the gay community to have the word ‘marriage’ redefined.

Even the argument that marriage has changed or doesn’t mean as much to some, or the vows are taken lightly, still does not negate the fact that the word marriage has a meaning, and a definition, and including other groups into it’s meaning or definition, changes it.

Well, it could be the whole argument is out of our hands now, as it seems to be going faster than our ability to discuss it or think about it. If one day, one side or the other prevails, I will remember our conversation and will wonder what you all are thinking.

Apr 10, 2009 - 6:24 am 134. one of my own:

128. LynnS: . . . “The definition of Marriage, a man and a woman become husband and wife, should not be changed.”

Really? Whose definition is that? Yours? And who are you to decide? Marriage used to be defined as a man and a woman of the same race. But that changed. Why? Because it was bigoted and discriminatory. How typically conservative it is to forbid other people from doing things for no other reason than you find it to be icky. Well, I find it icky for priests to molest young boys, so I think we should forbid the Catholic church in this country. Let’s make a deal – we’ll forbid gay marriage and kick out the Catholic church. Don’t like that deal? Wanna keep the church? Then mind your own business.

Apr 10, 2009 - 9:12 am 135. Jack:

#133 LynnS – As to some people in the gay community who want to “push the limits” as it were, are the same in my mind as those religious groups that want to push the limits on banning stem cell research, adding prayer to schools, and so on. I lop off the fringe 10% of each extreme on any given topic because they will never be happy. I’m more concerned about those in the middle coming to terms.

If someone is unwilling to budge, we’ll just do it without them, plain and simple. You talk about things being the way they have been for hundreds of years as if that (even if true) were a sufficient reason for not making changes. Slavery, womens rights, equal pay, etc etc. should have arguably been fixed long before they were, but too many people resisted change because of their parochial views that were out of date.

We in this country have a history of freedom and equality, but sadly only after struggles that lasted too long. My feeling is that those who are resisting gay rights will find themselves looked on as the intolerant and discriminatory ‘bad guys’. History is full of these parallels. I just ask that those who resist are critical of their views (as I should be of mine, of course) and try to get and understanding of what their core concerns are. If it ISN’T, for example, the ability to make sure that gay couples can adequately protect their children the same as straight couples, then don’t throw the baby out with the bath water out of dislike of gays or specifically, gay “marriage”.

And I think RightWingHippyChick #132 makes a great point…why is the right fighting against loving couples protecting themselves and their families when they want to embrace the very unity the right claims to hold so dear(between them)?

I’ll leave you with this. I work with a lesbian who has been with her partner for around 10 years. They have two beautiful twin girls who are just over 2 years old. However, because our state won’t allow the partner to adopt the children, if my friend dies then the state gives no protection that they’ll stay with their other parent (anyone in either family can challenge for custody with a fair chance of success). They are considering having to uproot the entire family and move to another state just to make sure the kids are cared for emotionally as well as financially (because that state provides for 2nd parent adoption although not gay marriage). Does it seem like we are doing the right thing for that family? It certainly doesn’t to me.

Knowing this couple for the past 5 years and having helped put swingsets together for the kids and going their birthday parties and holiday events has made it abundantly clear to me I’m on the right side of this. Letting something foul befall this family unit simply because some people don’t like that it is what it is and so they are not afforded the same benefits as the rest of us is, in my mind, evil at worst, callous and selfish at best. I’m not trying to throw stones at you personally, but I really think you need to see the issue from their perspective a little.

Jack

Apr 10, 2009 - 10:53 am 136. friedfish2718:

“our state won’t allow the partner to adopt the children”

Why is/are the father(s) out of the picture?

Many people hate God (or Primary Cause) for making
half of the human species female and the other half
male.

Apr 15, 2009 - 5:59 am 137. Jack:

The fathers are out of the picture because they used a sperm bank.

Many people tilt at windmills.

Jack

Apr 15, 2009 - 2:49 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: