supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...news-life/

Love, love, love that two of the major players in this case were appointed to their respective positions (current and former) by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. I'm sure, however, that the talk will remain about liberal judges and liberal agendas.

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Top
Posted by stephen (+250) 11 years ago
Yayayayayay. Happy dances Happy dances.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
Next step--the Supreme Court.
I read over some of the arguments in favor of the ban. They were basically, well, we think it is a bad thing. Sorry, that doesn't provide a legal basis for discrimination.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 11 years ago
I can feel my own marriage crumbling already.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
Actually, I'm friends with a lesbian couple who got married during that brief time it was legal in California so my marriage should have crumbled a few years ago. Oddly enough, it hasn't, in spite of their marriage. Hmmmmmm.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
He made the ruling everyone on the planet knew he was going to make. Now it will go to the appeal everyone on the planet knew was going to be appealed.

Will likely end up in the lap of the Supremes, unless the 9th overturns this ruling.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Rick,
I'm betting you think "everyone on the planet knew" the judge would rule the way he did because the judge is (gasp!) an avowed homosexual (pun intentional for Richard's amusement).

But I would argue that everyone on the planet who isn't blinded by their religious preferences (talk about something we CHOOSE) knew the judge would rule the way he did because it's so gull-durned obvious:

Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and does not protect or serve the greater public interest in any way. It is discrimination plain and simple, and discrimination has no place in America no matter how popular it is with some Americans.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
Amazing how The Great Rickenhawk makes these pronouncements AFTER an event happens.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
I read some of the "arguments" supporting Prop 8. They were basically blather. They could prove no state interest in denying rights to gays. Since the Prop 8 supporters basic argument involved religion and they couldn't use that as a basis for argument, they had nothing. You should read the whole decision. It is an elegant example of judicial eloquence.

I don't think an unbiased court could rule otherwise but we'll see how it plays before the Supremes.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Mexican court upholds capital's gay marriage law
by MARK STEVENSON, Associated Press Writer


MEXICO CITY - The Mexican Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a law allowing same-sex marriages in Mexico City is constitutional, rejecting an appeal by federal prosecutors who argued it violated the charter's guarantees to protect the family.

The rest of the story is here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/a...iage/print

It will be interesting to see if the SCOTUS believes that America should remain a world leader in the area of civil rights. If the Supremes extend equal rights to gays and lesbians, the USA won't have to cede that title to Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, South Africa and almost all European nations.

But if they find in favor of California's Prop 8, then we, as a nation, will remain among the ranks of countries like Chad, Rwanda, Cuba, Bolivia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, the former Soviet Bloc countries, India, Iraq, Jordan, China, Japan, N and S Korea, Cambodia, Laos and many other Third World countries that only give lip service to the principle of human rights.

You can tell a lot about a nation (and its citizens!) by the company it keeps....

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (8/5/2010)]
Top
Posted by Smiley (+847) 11 years ago
lI hate the obviously stupid defense of "being gay is a choice." Even if it is a choice, so is being religious. So either gays and religious people are discrimintated against, or everyone has equal liberty l
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
Steve, Judge McCarth... er I mean Walker tipped his hand pretty early when he decided that instead of weighing the constitutionality of the measure as passed by the people, he'd put Prop 8 supporters on trial, and demand access to all their personal records and correspondence.

Pretty chilling if you think about it.

Luckily, even that was too much for the (left-leaning) 9th Circuit to stomach, so they slapped that part down. But it was clear from the get-go that this was a show trial.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
Oh, and Steve, that Mexico City law is actually a Civil Union law. So they have regular marriage for hetero couples, and civil unions for same-sex couples.

aka exactly what California has today that you're calling illegal and immoral.

Anyway, it leaves me kinda confused as to what 'rights' are being denied in the State of California by Prop 8?
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
Please give me one good reason why some couples should be allowed to marry, while others should be denied.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 11 years ago
Presenting good reasons is not in the Strawman Playbook.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
Setting the whole gay union thing aside, the concern I have with this ruling is that the votes of 7 million people were tossed aside by just one more powerful vote . Seems like the concept of a representative republic is in trouble.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
There were times in our country when the majority believed in slavery, no rights for women and blacks, and no interracial marriage. Taking this into consideration, should the majority always rule, or as Thomas Jefferson said, do the minority have their rights, which law must protect?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
The minority certainly have rights that should be protected. The challenge is finding the balance between the minority overruling the expressed will of the majority through the courts and allowing view of majority to stand as the will of the people. If the will of the majority in an election can be overturned, how long before we simple allow judges to appoint our representatives rather than the majority of people choosing? IMO, there is a slippery slope here and the end result is not good for the cause of liberty.

All of that aside, I think it would be a huge mistake to appeal this decision to a higher court.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (8/6/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
IMHO, one's civil rights should never be an issue up for majority vote in the first place.

I am still curious as to one good reason why not every couple is granted the same right to marry, despite all being on equal footing as to U.S. citizenship and the rights that citizenship entails. In other words, why are some citizens afforded rights that others are not?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
IMHO, one's civil rights should never be an issue up for majority vote in the first place.


Perhaps you have a point. But how do we deal with the expanding definition of what is a "civil right"? Is/should equality of income a/become "civil right"? Is it fair that you have both a Jeep and a mini-van and your neighbor only has a beat up old car?

I am still curious as to one good reason why not every couple is granted the same right to marry, despite all being on equal footing as to U.S. citizenship and the rights that citizenship entails. In other words, why are some citizens afforded rights that others are not?


Why limit the right to marry or have a civil union to "couples" regardless of gender. Mormon's (or any one else who wants to go there) ought to have the right to have multiply wives/partners, don't you think. In other words, why are some citizens afforded rights that others are not?

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (8/7/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
I'd have a little more respect for the 'equal rights' argument if it were consistent. Why don't the 'equal rights' in marriage people clamor for any two people to get married for any reason?

Why not let two brothers get married, or two sisters? Those marriage benefits might come in handy, from what I'm told.

Seems like the point here is to grant new 'rights' based solely on who pokes what where.

I'd be more supportive of throwing state marriage out entirely than redefining it based on state approval of bedroom festivities.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
Love this argument. You know very well why there are already laws against closely- related people marrying, so this comparison is moot.

What are the "new" rights being sought? I see only the right that is already being extended to millions of Americans at stake. Why do you have rights that others do not? Your sarcasm seems to make the point. One's bedroom proclivities have no bearing on whether the government should bestow a right to one couple and not another.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
I can't see how you can deny 'rights' to any two consenting adults.

You keep telling me these rights are so valuable that they should be universal, but then you keep saying it should only be granted based on what people do in the bedroom.

My question is, what sense does that make?

But then again, in California's case, no rights are being denied at all, due to their generous civil union laws. So really it's not about rights. It's about getting that Government Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on what people do in their rooms at night.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
If you don't have a legitimate argument, you make something up. There is not a substantial percentage of the population wishing to marry their siblings or their dogs. Your spooky projections are NOT the issue.

The issue is simple. Should a basic civil right be denied to people based on their race? Ooops. That was the law 40 years ago in many states, voted in by the people, and overturned by the courts because the will of the majority does not trump the rights of the minority.

The only reason people are opposed is religious and, in a country with no state religion, this means they have no argument so they make up nonsense about marrying your twelve sisters.

Yes, sometimes the voters are wrong. Many, many people were opposed to allowing women and non-white, and non-property owners to vote. They voted against suffrage. They were wrong. Many people voted against allowing "inter-racial" marriage. They were wrong. Many people voted against gay marriage. They were wrong.

Extending basic civil rights to gays will not lead to pedophilia, or in-breeding, or bestiality, any more than allowing a person of Irish origin to marry a person of Ethopian origin did.

Forty years from now, our children will look back on this issue in bafflement, just as we today look back on slavery, women not having the vote, and the ban on "inter-racial" marriage.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
You're viewing the question through the eyes of your own stigma, Amorette.

There are (and will be) plenty of scenarios where unmarried siblings and relatives would have reason to want to extend benefits to their family members that are currently only available to a spouse.

I mean you guys have been telling me for years how valuable the protections of 'marriage' can be.

Once you switch the focus of 'Marriage' from the foundation of the nuclear family and the next generation, to a demand for equal conferrence of rights to everyone, this will become harder to deny.

Applying your 'ick' factor to it will only hold out for so long. And in essence, you're applying your morality to someone else's situation... the same thing you accuse everyone else of doing.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
Ahhh, "Once you switch the focus from the nuclear family and the 'next generation'..."

Love this argument as well. Who is standing at the Clerk of Court's office now ensuring everyone that is issued a license is planning on procreating? No marriage licenses for you if you are sterile, don't want kids, been through menopause, etc. Sorry! Marriage is only for those whose focus is on the next generation.

The "ick" factor has nothing to do with relatives not being able to marry. It is the genetic mutation factor for that all important next generation. Now, if you want to talk about if they should be allowed to marry if both parties consent to sterilization, that is another topic for conversation.

I've yet to see a reason that does not involve one's religion. If you're going to stick with the next generation schtick, we'd better see some campaigning for legislation against marriage for those not wanting/able to have kids.

Oh, and by the way, the not wanting to get married crowd, but still having no problem producing the next generation, seems to be perfectly capable of making up for those who want the right but cannot further the gene pool, so you should have no worries in that regard.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
25 posts and no mention of Leviticus.

Thank God.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
I think you're fundamentally missing the point.

You keep saying that marriage shouldn't discriminate based on what kind of sex people have. I'm saying if we're talking true 'equal protection', it shouldn't discriminate based on anyone having sex at all.

The genetic argument is a red herring. You can't make that argument with brothers... father and son... mother and daughter. So even if you believed what you said, you should be supportive in these cases.

But we all know an 'equal rights' marriage for benefits isn't going to induce people to have sex. It's all about people just receiving their equal protection. Or that's what I'm told.

Or maybe what I've joked about progressivism all along is true. All 'rights' really do begin and end in the bedroom.

Everything else is just a State-granted privilege.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
You've hit the nail on the head. It should not discriminate on the basis of sex at all. Kudos for the revelation!
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Sometime back Richard said:
Setting the whole gay union thing aside, the concern I have with this ruling is that the votes of 7 million people were tossed aside by just one more powerful vote . Seems like the concept of a representative republic is in trouble.


I see it differently, Richard. When it comes to the rights of minorities (whether that minority reflect a religious, racial, ethnic, sexual, gender, etc. issue), there will always be a tension between a "representative republic" and "mob rule." That's why the Founding Fathers (Brothers and a couple of Sisters, actually) established a balance of power, and one of those balancing forces is the Judicial Court System.

Instead of this issue revealing that our social system is "in trouble", it actually shows that our system is working exactly the way it was designed. In other words, it reveals the genius of the American Way. And that is very cool!
Top
Posted by polar bear (+509) 11 years ago
Our system is working! I agree.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
Okay, let's try another tack. The issue is gay marriage. Not another scary premise made up to divert the question. Nothing to do with incest or polygamy. No 'ick' factor. Just gay marriage.

Right.

What is the State's vested interest in preventing gays from marrying? Who is the State protecting by forbidding this right?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
I think maybe we should try another strategy.

Instead of Marriages, we'll start calling them Cooperative Gender Diversity Contracts.

In order to encourage household gender diversity, the state needs to give special 'protected status' to the gender-diverse household.

There's no way a progressive can argue with that.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
Okay, let's try another tack. The issue is gay marriage. Not another scary premise made up to divert the question. Nothing to do with incest or polygamy. No 'ick' factor. Just gay marriage.


Maybe YOUR issue is gay marriage. But if you look more closely, the ruling the judge made has impact on other constitutional issues. The ruling for gays is fine... I really don't care and don't think gays having some sort of civil union is a big deal. There doings won't impact my life. The truth is that in CA gays already enjoy significant civil liberties. If other states want to provide those liberties to their gay population they certainly have the right to pursue this. I think this ruling is a bit of a trojan horse and the gay population is merely a pawn to challenge and change the constitution.

My issue is, that because of this ruling, going forward it will be extremely difficult if not impossible in this country for a group of people in an individual state to gather signatures for some issue that determines how they wish to be governed, have the electorate vote on that issue and abide by the will of the majority. Now 5% of the population, not necessarily even in that state, governs through the courts how the other 95% of the people would live. I don't believe that the founders intended this to be the way we are governed. I am concerned about how this legal precedent impacts our constitutional liberties. I am concerned about the impact this ruling has on states rights. If we as a country feel the need for a new constitution then let's sit down and discuss that like adults and all agree or allow those who disagree to form their own more perfect unions.

And again, given the judges ruling, and the need you all feel to protect the civil rights of the minority, if men want to have two/more wives or women want to have two/more husbands (or whatever other combination you want to dream up) why shouldn't they be allowed to have what meets their needs. This is not a "scary fact" but a matter of long standing persecution of a minority. Let's at least be intellectually honest and consistent.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (8/7/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
[This message has been edited by Bob L. (8/7/2010)]
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
IF what the electorate votes for is unconstitutional, then why should the vote of the electorate be allowed to stand? If the electorate votes that white males over the age of 21 are not eligible to vote, would you appeal that to the court because it infringed on your rights?

If the majority voted to prevent people of German extraction from marrying someone of Irish extraction, would you support an appeal to the court or would you say, Majority rules, NO Irish/German marriages.

And, again, WHAT is the vested interest of the state in forbidding gay marriage? What is the vest interested of the state in protecting civil rights?

The issue is NOT that the courts can overrule badly written, unconstitutional laws. They can. That is their function. The issue is WHY should THIS law be overruled and/or upheld?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
They don't like the gays.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
The issue is WHY should THIS law be overruled and/or upheld?


I don't disagree that this particular law shouldn't be upheld. As I said previously, I truly hope that it is not appealed. But the unintended consequence of such rulings is that the minority is effective rewriting the constitution. If we really need to write a new constitution, there are better ways to do it than through the courts telling us how it's going to be.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (8/7/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 11 years ago
Marriage should be the blessed union between two unwilling teenagers, or the blessed union between Rush and 4 wives at 4 different times, or the blessed union between 2 people thrown together by a reality show, or the blessed union between 2 people who got poopfaced in Vegas and don't know each other, or the blessed union between an 80 year old rich guy and his 18 year old gold-digger wife, or the blessed union between some woman and the guy from prison who sends her letters, or the blessed union between 2 people who met on the internet(one of whom is a perverted serial killer), or the long-lasting blessed union between an abusive alcoholic and a spouse with no way out, or the blessed union between between some ultra-religious, weak-chinned "father" and a 12 year old girl. In other words, marriage should remain traditional, and not involve two people of the same sex who love each other.

We can't have gays getting married to each other because they're inherently inferior. Think of all the bad things that could happen! They're not perfect enough, like us straight people.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
It's very simple.

The majority of people believe that a family functions best with both positive male and female role models.

We believe that there are inherent differences in the parenting roles of mothers and fathers, but that both are equally important and valuable.

There's not really much argument that can be had. Either you believe that or you don't. If you do, you will see traditional marriage as an institution that should be protected.

If you view gender and parental roles as artificial constructs brought by generations of patriarchy, or some other conspiracy, you would obviously feel differently.

But you can't pretend that there's no validity in wanting to protect traditional marriage and traditional families. You may not agree with it. But there are good reasons for people to feel differently than you do.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
Come on, Rickenhawk. You think being a homo is a sin.

But you're too much of a coward to say it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
Positive male and female role models? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...excuse me while I have a laughing fit...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Now, in a little bit of seriousness. How many current marriages contain only one, or even worse, neither? Are these people allowed to marry, and remarry, without constraint, and without regard to the children? Yes, yes and yes.

If that is the criteria, I know a whole lot of hetero people who will not be getting married. It is not a perfect world, no matter the desire to make it so. Children can turn out just fine, without two positive role models, of which there is no doubt, as you well know.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
So, allowing gays to marry will destroy traditional marriages and families how? By what mechanism will traditional marriages be in ANY WAY EFFECTED if gays are allowed to marry.

I know that "protecting" traditional marriage is the big argument. (As a side note, the "traditional marriage has been pretty much a goner for ages if you count traditional marriage as two virgins marrying and having several children and never divorcing. It wasn't done in by gay marriage but by straight people getting divorced and straight people having children without benefit of matrimony.)

But what are you protecting those traditional marriages from? How does the marriage of two people in California effect my marriage in Montana? Because I know a gay married couple and their marriage in NO WAY effected mine.

If you are "protecting" traditional marriage, prove to me that traditional marriage is in any way damaged by gay marriage.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Rick stated:

"But you can't pretend that there's no validity in wanting to protect traditional marriage and traditional families. You may not agree with it. But there are good reasons for people to feel differently than you do."


If the opponents of gay marriage are sincere about wanting to protect traditional marriage and "the children" - then why aren't they advocating for these things:
-- the abolition of divorce?
-- requirements for parental training prior to having children?
-- compatibility testing and counseling prior to marriage?
-- expansion of SCHIP (health insurance for kids)?
-- raising the amount of food stamps a poor family can recieve?
-- revamping welfare so benefits are EASIER to get for intact families (i.e., when the father remains in the home) if one parent is enrolled in some form of education or training?

-- and a whole bunch of other things that actually have some effect on the quality and stability of family life???

The fact is that families with two daddies or two mommies are statistically no different than "traditional" families (if such a thing exists outside of 1950's television reruns). And where there has been a statistical difference, the non-traditional families usually have the edge.

So COME OUT Rickenhawk and all you others. Admit that you just plain don't like the idea that homosexuals are just as good as you. Be honest with yourself. Be OUT and be PROUD. It's very liberating.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (8/7/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 11 years ago
If Rick and Richard come out(no pun intended) in favor of allowing gay marriage, someone might think THEY are gay...a fate worse than death.
Gay marriage a state's right's issue? Yeah. Right.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
Apparently you can't read.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 11 years ago
"My issue is, that because of this ruling, going forward it will be extremely difficult if not impossible in this country for a group of people in an individual state to gather signatures for some issue that determines how they wish to be governed, have the electorate vote on that issue and abide by the will of the majority."

Looks like State's Rights to me.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
I appreciate your message Richard, although it is "marriage" being sought, not civil unions, but the sentiment is noted.

I'm still confused as to your concern, however. I understand the logistics of the argument, but fail to see how it applies in this case, which is really the discussion. Letting the majority have their say would be like having let the majority have their say during the fight for women's rights. The majority, like Ricky, made their argument for the slippery slope. Things like, if we give women the right to vote, next they will want rights in the home, and then maybe to work outside the home, perhaps have their own money and personal liberties, etc. A slippery slope into "what-ifs" can be had in every argument. I'm very appreciative of the fact that the majority did not rule in this regard, as all women should be, although I know there are plenty of people who wish the majority had won.

I do resent the implication I've heard and read repeatedly that if you support marriage equality, you do not believe in the importance of family or the well-being of children. That's rubbish. Perhaps other people feel, just as I do, that supporting a ban is a little like sitting on that bus, taking up a seat when an elderly lady really could use the rest, or tolerating separate lines for drinking fountains and bathrooms, or sitting idly by while I am served and others are refused. For myself, I just could not live with that feeling. Change has to start somewhere with someone. Love, respect, tolerance and acceptance of others as your equals are the most important lessons you can teach your children.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Denise - bravo to you for bringing to light something that needs to be addressed given some recent political claims by Rand Paul and other conservative politicians.

Remember when Rand Paul was trying to soften his support for racial discrimination by "private" businesses. (Sidenote: Is there really such a thing? I've heard of private clubs, but how would a business that was truly "private" ever stay in - er, well - BUSINESS?)

Anyway, Rand claimed that he would have been carrying a flag right alongside of MLK JR. in those civil rights marches -- to which I say phooey. If that is true, then Rand would be marching alongside of __________________ (just who is the leader of gay rights?) demanding equality for all. But where is he? Certainly not at any gay pride parades, that's for sure.

A lot of white people really were marching alongside Dr. King supporting civil rights for racial minorities. We marched alongside of Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinem for women's rights. We are now lending our voices and our votes to extend equal rights to homosexuals.

To Rand, Sarah Palin and all you other so-called lovers of freedom, please stand aside while real progress is made. You can join the parade in 40 years or so and CLAIM you always supported equal rights for ALL God's Children.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
Gee Whiz Steveo, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Hey Richard,

Thanks for giving me another opportunity to reach around and pat myself and LOTS and LOTS of other people for standing up for equal rights.

There are some things about my life I'm not all that proud of, Ricardo, one of which is I can't brew beer worth a procreate. BUT - I am very proud that I was raised by two parents who believed in the equality of MAN - no matter what color, sex, etc. And the church I was raised in and continue to belong to (United Church of Christ, nee the Congregational Church) was at the forefront of abolition, Women's sufferage, civil rights and now human rights.

I've been around these issues a long time and I pretty much know a fake when I see one - and Rand Paul's claim is phoney-baloney. It's idiotic for him or anyone else who want to withhold equal rights from gays and lesbians to expect us to believe that they would have been marching for civil rights in 1964. That's a BS claim and they know it.

If calling them on it looks self-congratulatory, then so be it.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (8/7/2010)]
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
We're going to miss you, Steve!

I am still waiting for an answer to my question. How does allowing gays to marry threaten straight marriages?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Frank Hardy (+1606) 11 years ago
A very simple algebraic proof, actually.

Follow along: Let's designate a gay as the number "1". Makes sense, right? Especially when thinking of the honeymoon..Roowwr!

Your average straight couple can be represented by the number "10". Again, makes sense, right? Think of the zero in small, sexy terms.

A single gay male "1" standing near a straight couple "10" is in no way threatening, since numerically it is a much smaller number.

BUT!! When you marry them off, they become "11" and then if you stand them near the straight couple, you have "11" "10", definitely a dominating situation...it gets even worse if the straight couple get divorced....or if the straight couple are facing away "01".

Hope that helps!


FH
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
Thanks, Steve.

The laundry list of Gubmint programs that would do just as well as a father in the life of a child really kinda underscores my point. On this, we will never agree. Fathers are critical to the development of children. It's common sense, backed by both history, and far more evidence than a few opposed advocacy groups could ever muster.

And I see we have yet another 'time-machine solidarity by internet forum proxy' argument.

MLK? Steinem? You likely couldn't have gotten them to march together by themselves on their own issues, let alone after lassoing them with whatever new mantle suits your own purposes.

I think it's probably best to stick to facts, rather than stamping your name on other people's work.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 11 years ago
Rick:

Why can't/won't you answer Amorette's question?
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Rick,

If opposition to gay marriage is based on a desire to keep fathers in the home, then why isn't the focus of Proposition 8 and similar legislation on making it more difficult to get a divorce?

If the opposition is based on a desire to keep "gubmint" out of our personal lives, then why use the Constitution to enshrine a restriction on personal liberty and religious freedom?

You seem for some weird chem-trail reason to think that the effort to achieve Women's Rights was somehow undermined by the Civil Rights movement and vice-versa. If you are talking about some personality conflict between two individuals, then maybe you're right in a small-scale, small-mind kind of way. I know Susan B. Anthony was upset when Black men were given equal rights before women of either color were. Maybe Gloria and MLK, Jr. didn't get along on a personal level. But to imply that what both of them stood for conflicts with the other is a silly dish that only a Rickenhawk could cook up. MLK believed that homosexuals deserved equality - and he proved that with his actions by hiring and continue to employ a gay man even when other Black leaders encouraged him not to. And Gloria Steinem's support of gays and lesbians is well documented. So what's your point here, Rick?

I agree it's best to stick to the facts. You should try it rather than bending half-truths to your liking and fantazizing the rest.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (8/8/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
And that other tired tired tired question of "what's next - Polygamy? Marrying animals? Mating with inanimate objects?" isn't even worthy of discussion. In fact, it's been discussed to death. Those who are still asking that question just don't get it and never will. It's sad, actually.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Thanks Amorette. I'll miss you and everyone (well, not EVERYone) in Miles City as well. It's been a wonderfully great experience for me - surprisingly so. As a friend of mine often says: Miles City is the best small town in America. I wish you luck in all of your efforts to keep it that way.

Now, will somebody please answer Amorette's simple little question that lies at the heart of this big issue:

How does allowing gays to marry threaten straight marriages?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
And that other tired tired tired question of "what's next - Polygamy? Marrying animals? Mating with inanimate objects?" isn't even worthy of discussion. In fact, it's been discussed to death. Those who are still asking that question just don't get it and never will. It's sad, actually.


You're right Steve. I don't "get" how from a civil rights perspective you support marriage between homosexuals and not support polygamy. I believe that the rights of the minority here need to be protected, don't you. If people want multiple partner relationships what is the legal basis for denying them? I think it is very relevant to the discussion. Seems hypocritical to me to support one and not the other. Perhaps you in your near messianic state of being can enlighten us.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
If opposition to gay marriage is based on a desire to keep fathers in the home, then why isn't the focus of Proposition 8 and similar legislation on making it more difficult to get a divorce?


Trust me, I'd love for California to work on the no-fault divorce mess they started as well.

Then again I'm sure Prop 8 backers find themselves wondering why 'equal rights' keep getting thrown out there when California long ago handed out the civil unions you guys always said you wanted (and as you yourself heralded in Mexico City)

But of course when it was pointed out to you that no rights were even denied in this case... in practice we were talking about the semantics of one word... "Marriage".... nothing was heard from you above the chirp of the Crickets.

So you'll forgive us if we don't believe that this path will simply end at the word "marriage." You'll be calling for the next battle to be fought in the schools, and then the religious organizations and the churches.

The reason you're worried about Semantics is because you're trying to leverage government to change what people believe.

If the opposition is based on a desire to keep "gubmint" out of our personal lives


Now that's a dodge. I said government can't replace a father. Simple as that. You're just trying to avoid a rational response.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
If people wanting to figure out the legal semantics of multiple marriage sue for those rights, then we can discuss it. Because multiple marriage would be darned complicated to figure out legally. That said, I know someone who was brought up in a polygamist family in Utah and guess what? She was sane, normal, and just an all-around wonderful person. If consenting adults are involved and they sue for their rights, then I'll consider it.

However, the current issue is gay marriage and ONLY gay marriage. Granting one civil right to one discriminated group does not automatically extend a similar right to another. Witness black men getting the vote before women. Took years to extend that right and, guess what! court battles.

So, the following arguments are not valid:

1. This ruling will automatically lead to someone else demanding the right to marry whatever. That will be a separate issue and separate legal battle.

2. This ruling has nothing to do with men and their responsibilities as fathers. NOTHING. Not even a little bit.

3. In fact, this ruling is not about parenthood. There were some who tried to make it about parents but they failed on two points. Not all heterosexual couples have children and all the legitimate studies have shown that the sexual orientation of the parent has no effect on the children (beyond the children being hassled by bigots.)

4. This ruling merely extends certain legal rights to a discriminated party. Doesn't hurt straight marriage. Doesn't hurt kids. Doesn't hurt fathers. (Hey! Maybe kids raised by two fathers are better than kids raised by fathers and mothers. Maybe ONLY gay men should be allowed to raise children.)

In conclusion, what logical argument is there to deny gay couples (not siblings, not dogs, not polygamists) the right to marry?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
How about this, Amorette?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA...489&page=1

How far do 'equal rights' extend?

This seems a much more egregious violation of rights than forcing someone to use the term 'Civil Union' instead of 'Marriage'
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Richard,

I understand that for those of you who believe that homosexuality is a choice and not a natural trait based in the biological/physiological structure of the brain, it is difficult to distinguish the rights of gays and lesbians from all those other groups you name.

But for those of us who are aware that one's sexual orientation is determined long before birth, just like eye color, skin color, right vs. left handedness, etc. So it's easy for us enlightened ones, messiahs and non-messiahs alike, to see the difference.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Rickenhawk, your generalizations are so ridiculous that I'm not even sure why I bother responding to them. I'm either a Messiah or a Fool for caring. 99.9% would vote for the latter, I'm sure. Anyway, here goes ....

If all you heard was a cricket in response to the civil unions issue, then you must have been standing way way out in left far far rightwingnut field where you couldn't hear anything.

Civil unions are NOT equal to marriage - ask any attorney worth their bar membership dues. The reasons are many and varied, but the easiest way to explain it is that federal and state laws are built around the term marriage, and its very difficult to amend all those existing laws to recognize a new term like Civil Unions. All sorts of dragons and monsters lurk in those woods.

BUT - the main response that I heard between my Messiah-gigs was this: Civil unions would be a great solution if they applied to all unions between two people - straight and gay alike. In fact, I heard several learned speakers (but absolutely not one cricket) give voice to the opinion that government should get out of the marriage business and issue only civil unions. Marriage would be a status established in a religious ceremony - civil unions would be available for couples who did not want to be joined in HOLY matrimony.

As for the charge of avoiding a rational response to the "gubmint cannot replace a father" - well, all I can say is "Holy sperm bank, Batman! I never made a statement that even remotely suggested that gubmint should or could replace a father. So why in the H-E-double toothpick should I be expected to issue any response - rational or otherwise - to such a ludicrous charge?

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (8/8/2010)]
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
In much of Europe, church weddings are just for fluff. The legal ceremony takes place in a government office and then, if you want, you can have a church wedding. That seems like a pretty fair solution to me, rather than playing with "separate but equal."

What churches do regarding homosexual acceptance in their sphere is up to them. Catholics don't want to adopt children to Jewish parents, that is fine. Just make sure they get no government funding. If they get government funding, then the rules of non-discrimination apply.

Again, this has nothing to do with marriage. Why is gay marriage damaging to straight marriage? Why can't gays marry? How will their marriage change existing marriages? How will it damage them? What is the state's interest in discriminating against gays when it comes to marriage rights?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
Marriage would be a status established in a religious ceremony - civil unions would be available for couples who did not want to be joined in HOLY matrimony.


I believe I've suggested a similar arrangement myself a time or two.

As for the charge of avoiding a rational response to the "gubmint cannot replace a father" - well, all I can say is "Holy sperm bank, Batman! I never made a statement that even remotely suggested that gubmint should or could replace a father. So why in the H-E-double toothpick should I be expected to issue any response - rational or otherwise - to such a ludicrous charge?


It wasn't a charge. I said government can't replace a father. Your answer to that was...

If the opposition is based on a desire to keep "gubmint" out of our personal lives, then why use the Constitution to enshrine a restriction on personal liberty and religious freedom?


Which reads like a response to something that wasn't even brought up... aka a dodge, red herring, whatever. Almost like it was from a script. But I guess we've done this often enough that that's pretty much what this is.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
What churches do regarding homosexual acceptance in their sphere is up to them.


So you'd say the Massachusetts adoption law mentioned in the above article is unconstitutional?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
Rickenhawk is morally superior to homosexuals.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Almost like it was from a script. But I guess we've done this often enough that that's pretty much what this is.


Well, I'd call it more of a dance at this point.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
Rick said:
We believe that there are inherent differences in the parenting roles of mothers and fathers, but that both are equally important and valuable.

There's not really much argument that can be had. Either you believe that or you don't. If you do, you will see traditional marriage as an institution that should be protected.


If this is the main reason for opposing same-sex marriage then why aren't you out lobbying for laws that make divorce more difficult to obtain? I would think that easy divorce laws are just as much a threat to traditional marriage (at least YOUR idea of what that is) as same-sex unions. Yet no one is out there talking about that. Why? This is why.

Newt Gingrich - thrice married
Bill O'Reilly - thrice married
Glenn Beck - twice married
John McCain - twice married
Fred Thompson - twice married
Ronald Reagan - twice married
Rush Limbaugh - married four times
Karl Rove - twice divorced
Linda Lingle (Hawaii Governor) - twice divorced
Bob Dole - twice married
Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - thrice married

I also found this interesting.

Barna report: Variation in divorce rates among Christian faith groups:

Denomination (in order of decreasing divorce rate)
% who have been divorced

Non-denominational ** 34%
Baptists 29%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%
** Barna uses the term "non-denominational" to refer to Evangelical Christian congregations that are not affiliated with a specific denomination. The vast majority are fundamentalist in their theological beliefs. More info.
Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate.

http://www.religioustoler...r_dira.htm
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
If this is the main reason for opposing same-sex marriage then why aren't you out lobbying for laws that make divorce more difficult to obtain?


How much lobbying have you done down there in Utah, Wendy?

I didn't realize to oppose/support you had to lobby. I guess most of this thread's proudest will have to hang their heads in shame.

Of course, claiming solidarity with Gloria Steinem should've been reason enough for that already.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
I'll take a seat on the plane next to Gloria Steinem over Sarah Palin anyday.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
And while some parties have wandered off into fatherhood and who they would sit next to on a plane and a dozen other diversionary topics, they have produced not one solid, legal reason to deny gays the right to marry.

Why?

Because they don't have one and they hope that with all the distractions, I wouldn't notice.

I did.

:
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
OK, rick, I looked at the article you linked to in an earlier post. I have to say that if the Catholic Church Social Services doesn't want to place children in adoptive homes that have gay or lesbian parents, that really should be the church's perogative. It doesn't make any sense and I think someday the Holy See will be issuing an apology to gays the way it has to Jews for its silence during the Holocaust and Galileo for torturing him for the heresy of observing and stating the physical laws of nature ... but that is the Church's business, not mine and not the US government's.

Of course, it's taking all of my messianic willpower to resist the temptation to point out the irony of the Vatican calling gay adoption "gravely immoral" given its long history of protecting predatory priests while simultaneously failing to protect children. Seems to me they have lost the high ground when it comes to judging what makes a fit parent. But that's just me and my messianic ways....

I would have more sympathy for the Vatican's position if it could show one or more instances where Christ made such a sweeping judgment. But the men in the Vatican who wear dresses and high hats and lots of jewelry can't do that because Christ never made such a statement. Christ's oversight in that area created a real bugaboo for the Pope, didn't it. Now he has to get those furs and fine fabrics dusty as He searches through all those Old Testament texts to find support for His (the Pope's - not Christ's) moral judgements - right in there with the prohibitions against speaking to women during their menstrual cycles and rules on how to treat slaves.

I guess that means that His Holiness can't answer Amorette's question either.

Well, it's late. I'm turning in. Even MilesCity.com messiahs need their sleep.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (8/8/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
what logical argument is there to deny gay couples (not siblings, not dogs, not polygamists) the right to marry?


Simple. It is culturally insensitive to those on the east coast trying to establish Sharia Law. Other than being cultural insensitive there probably isn't an argument from logic to deny gays the right to marry. I can't imagine you would want to be culturally insensitive.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
I'm going to assume you're joking Richard, since even if there were people trying to establish sharia law, it wouldn't have much chance of gaining traction. All of the "Blue laws" in the US have long since disappeared - if people aren't willing to give up shopping on Sunday, I doubt they're going to agree to whatever nonsense people think would be imposed by those scary scary imams...
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
Arguments given against suffrage [marriage equality]:


Because women already have the municipal vote, and are eligible for membership of most local authorities. These bodies deal with questions of housing, education, care of children, workhouses and so forth, all of which are peculiarly within a woman's sphere. Government, however, has to deal mainly with the administration of a vast empire, the maintenance of the Army and Navy, and with questions of peace and war, which lie outside the legitimate sphere of woman's influence. [The gays and lesbians already have the right to live together and them things called civil unions (heard 'bout them on Limbaugh. Nothin' like wakin' up in the morning to my daily Rush. Beats any other high out there, and believe me I know what I'ma talkin' bout). Why can't they just be happy with the scraps we're given' em?]



Because all government rests ultimately on force, to which women, owing to physical, moral and social reasons, are not capable of con-tributing. [Everyone knows, gay men can't contribute to the defense of our great country, with their pansy ways (see DADT) and Lord knows we don't want lesbians defendin' our country (they might give us straight men patriots a run for our money),and as sure as eggs is eggs, we all know gays and lesbots ain't capable of contributing on moral and social issues to our great nation.]



Because women are not capable of full citizenship, for the simple reason that they are not available for purposes of national and defense. All government rests ultimately on force, to which women, owing to physical, moral and social reasons, are not capable of contributing. [See the aforementioned. Learnt that on Law & Order. Ain't nothin' you can't learn on Law & Order I tell my kids. Schoolin' is for lightweights like them gays.]



Because there is little doubt that the vast majority of women have no desire for the vote. [There is just very little doubt that them gays don't want their rights. They wouldn't know what to do with them rights if it smacked them upside the head with a cashmere scarf in that puce and burgundy color combination I keep hearin' about.]



Because the acquirement of the vote would logically involve admission to government itself, and to all government offices. It is scarcely possible to imagine a woman being Secretary of Defense, and yet the principles of the Suffragettes involve that and many similar absurdities. [This is darn right ridiculous. You give them gays their marryin' rights, and next they're gonna want jobs without us sayin' no way Steve or Rick, we don't tolerate that queer business in this neck of the woods, or even worse, they's gonna want to start adoptin' them some babies. Can you imagine? Wantin' to adopt some babies? They'd take our perfectly straight white babies and dress 'em all up in sissy outfits with matchin' shoes and manpurses and turn 'em gay. Where would our next generation go? To Hell in a handbasket I say!]



Because past legislation shows that the interests of women are perfectly safe in the hands of men. [It's workin' just fine as it is now. Why change a good thing?]



Because Woman Suffrage is based on the idea of the equality of the sexes, and tends to establish those competitive relations which will destroy chivalrous consideration. [Marriage equality is sayin' that we're all equal, and we ALL know that ain't what the Good Book says. And I sure as hell don't want to have to start competin' with any lesbians for my women. Women in this country might start forgettin' what a real man is good for.]



Because women have at present a vast indirect influence through their menfolk on the politics of this country. [The gays and lesbians already get to pretend they's married in the privacy of their bedrooms. We pretty much stopped chargin' people with that soddomy stuff. ('Cuz it does seem pretty scary when I think 'bout it that some of us straight shooters like that kind of stuff with our women too, and that law's sayin' we could be charged too. Hmm. Better give that some more thought when I rest my brain up from all this thinkin'.) Shouldn't they be happy enough with that? They don't have the real thing, but it's kinda the same.]



Because the physical nature of women unfits them for direct com-petition with men. [Their physical nature makes them unfit to keep makin' future generations, and that's what this is all about. Oh, and havin' fathers in the home too. That's right. It's about fathers too. But wait a second, doesn't that mean two daddies would be better than no daddies, like some of my friends who done run off and left their women with little ones and all knocked up 'cuz they wanted to play that Nintendo all day and not miss 4:20 every day 'cuz they's busy workin' or changin' diapers? Hmmm, I'll have to think bout that one too, 'cuz boy-o-boy my brains startin' to ache like my balls when Miss Joetta Sue wears them short shorts she done made from jeans, and cut real high so you can even see the pockets hangin' out. Wooeee, that's achin'!]

Now, after read'n all these reasons, ain't nobody in their right mind gonna be able to disbute that our country's only gonna stand if we keep doin' as we doin'. It's got us this far, for somethin' like 200 years (I think that's what my history teacher was tellin' us, but I wasn't really payin' attention, I was too busy lookin' at Joetta Sue. Wooeee, did I tell ya about that ache?) Why change now? It might get us another 200 just stayin' the course, and heck, since the world's only been around for about 15 times that accordin' to Ken Ham, I say we's doin' allllright.

[This message has been edited by Denise Selk (8/9/2010)]
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
APPLAUSE!!!!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
Well, Rick. I do try to influence our legislature through indirect methods by writing to my representatives and voicing my opinion. That's lobbying. I'm sure there are plenty of mc.commers who do the same. I'm not sure what my activities have to do with this discussion, unless you are implying that because I live in Utah I subscribe to the local majority's stance on same-sex marriages and therefore somehow don't have the right to question your position. That's a rather odd assumption though.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
I'm not sure what my activities have to do with this discussion


That was my point. We'll leave it at that.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
Funny, cousin Jethro's accent didn't seem quite so pronounced to me.

Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
So? Another person with whom I disagree and who is using religion as excuse. As a lawyer, he knows that won't hold water. As a politician, he knows how to suck up.

Still, no evidence that gay marriage harms anyone or anything and therefore, is in the state interest to forbid. Until that happens, I merely hope that sanity prevails in the Supreme Court rather than the usual we vote our political party even if we pretend to be non-partisan.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
I don't agree with President Obama either. Not the first time. Actually, come to think of it, that would mean that you two have something in common. Strange how the world works isn't it?

By the way, Cousin Jethro wasn't involved. It was my best Jason Stackhouse imitation.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
See, conservatives are supposed to toe the party line. If they don't pass the test 100% on every question, then they are out. They don't believe in independent thought so the concept of disagreeing with a member of their own party just doesn't occur to them.

Liberal here. Disagree with my party on a hellava lotta things but still better than the goose-stepping alternative.

Still no argument on why gay marriage is damaging and must be denied. I keep checking back.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
[This message has been edited by Wendy Wilson (8/9/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 11 years ago
See, conservatives are supposed to toe the party line. If they don't pass the test 100% on every question, then they are out. They don't believe in independent thought so the concept of disagreeing with a member of their own party just doesn't occur to them.

Liberal here. Disagree with my party on a hellava lotta things but still better than the goose-stepping alternative.


Oh please. Got any more stereotypes to fill us in on?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
Levi - it's objectively true that the Republican caucus has more party discipline at the moment than the Democratic, otherwise we wouldn't have the spectacle of Harry Reid sucking up to the old ladies from Maine every time he needs a cloture vote, and useless dbags such as Baucus and Nelson wouldn't be able to make everything they touched suck.

If you go back a thread or two, take a look at how quickly Richard was given the full Rick once he started to stray from orthodoxy.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
I'm not the one that came up with the dogma questionnaire that Republicans are using to vet candidates. That was a Republican invention, used by Republicans on Republicans. If your party allows a wide range of opinions, why the need to make sure everyone toes the party line?

Anyway, not the point. Point is still why is gay marriage a threat? Answers have not been forthcoming.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
And yes, there was an official party platform that all Idaho republicans running for office had to sign onto, or reply in writing to the central committee with justification for their disagreement.

I realize that Idaho IS more conservative than Montana, but even in places like Massachusetts or California, you don't see liberal purity pledges.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
Amorette:

You're wasting your time trying to get an honest argument out of the Rickenhawk.

Rickenhawk's a bigot, blinded by ideology and Biblical zealotry.

Hopefully, Rickenhawk will live long enough to see marriage between homosexuals legalized throughout our great country.

It will take time, but it will happen.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
If I were Rick, I'd take a long hard look at Frank Cory and then decide if that's really what I wanted to become.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17052) 11 years ago
I don't think I've ever seen Rick but I've always imagined that he looks something like this:

Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 11 years ago
Amorette's statement is by no means justified by the fact that some republican LEGISLATORS are expected to toe the party line. She was talking about herself and people like her (ordinary voters). The idea that "we are rational and the other guys are idiots" is exactly what is wrong with political discourse in this country right now and the reason that nothing ever really changes in Washington. It's a ridiculous mindset when you are talking about nearly half the population of the country on either side and I take offense to it no matter how many times Bridgier poo-poos me or points out an example of a single person to justify it.

If you go back a thread or two, take a look at how quickly Richard was given the full Rick once he started to stray from orthodoxy.


I'm sure you could find at least one black person that is crazy for fried chicken too, but that doesn't make it okay to think in stereotypes.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
I'm not going to say that 50% of the voting populace are teahadist nutters (at least, outside of Idaho), but there HAS been some research into the BTKWB Threshold vs the Crazification Factor: http://slacktivist.typepa...ottom.html
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
Dave:

Nice.

Although Rich Lowry is also a douche, he can at least throw out a cogent argument now and again.

Rickenhawk, on the other hand...
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
See, conservatives are supposed to toe the party line.


Yeah, because nothing demonstrated liberal tolerance of differing opinion quite like this thread.

If they don't pass the test 100% on every question, then they are out.


What about Dick Cheney? He's on your side for the most part (I know, the horror). I haven't heard of his credentials being revoked. There are plenty of others as well.

But now the only thing that's left is for Steve to come back and give us another one of his vivid time-capsule illustrations of intergenerational righteousness...

Dick Cheney marching triumphantly beside Dr Martin Luther King from Selma to Montgomery... meanwhile Barack Obama in a virtual armlock with George Wallace, blocking those school doors with every ounce of his being, all the while whistlin' dixie.

Of course, my inside knowledge as a biblical zealot and all... word is that the 4 Horsemen themselves are anxiously monitoring this thread for his response.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
Still haven't heard a legal justification for the banning of gay marriage.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Wow, my previous posts in this thread have caused Rick and Richard to try to outdo one another in the "how can we shoot Steve down?" game. Apparently I hit a very sensitive nerve. Could it be because all advances in the area of civil rights (ending slavery and recognizing the rights of minorities) have been achieved by LIBERALS as conservatives ran around in circles worrying about the sky falling?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
Wow, my previous posts in this thread have caused Rick and Richard to try to outdo one another in the "how can we shoot Steve down?" game.


Speaking for myself (don't know about Rick's motives), I am not trying to shoot down "messiah crapduck". At some point the forces of drag and gravity will overcome the forces of lift and thrust and he will come back to earth, naturally and with a loud thud.

Apparently I hit a very sensitive nerve. Could it be because all advances in the area of civil rights (ending slavery and recognizing the rights of minorities) have been achieved by LIBERALS as conservatives ran around in circles worrying about the sky falling?


Last time I checked, President Lincoln, the first republican President, gets most of the credit for ending slavery. The Civil Rights act of 1964 had more support on a percentage basis from "conservatives" than it did from "liberals". It wouldn't have passed otherwise.

Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71%-29%).
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%).

By party

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)


http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ct_of_1964

What was your point, again?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
In 1964, Republican != conservative, Democrat != liberal. The passage of the civil rights act was the final straw for the remaining southern conservative democrats and accelerated the process which had begun in the 1940's with the adoption of an anti-lynching platform by the Democratic party. Jesse helms was a democrat in 1964, Strom Thurmond was a democrat in 1948. The northeastern liberal republican may have been on the endangered species list, but wasn't yet fully extinct, as it is in the House today.

Your argument is redonkulous, please refudiate.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
Not the first time Ricardo has tried to use that lame argument.

I'm sure Ricardo and Rickenhawk would've been BIG PROPONENTS of the Civil Rights Act.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
In the eighteen hundreds, Republicans were liberals and Democrats were conservatives. Over the last century and half, that swung. Lincoln was a liberal. His party tag at the time reflected that. Then the world changed. It happens.

Still no argument for making gay marriage illegal. Still waiting.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
The passage of the civil rights act was the final straw for the remaining southern conservative democrats and accelerated the process which had begun in the 1940's with the adoption of an anti-lynching platform by the Democratic party. Jesse helms was a democrat in 1964, Strom Thurmond was a democrat in 1948.


That's some pretty revisionist history.

The fun argument against it would be semi-agreement... Once all the racism was taken out of being a Democrat, there was no good reason to be a Democrat anymore

But that wouldn't make much sense. Because in reality for every Helms or Thurmond, there were 3 or 4 Byrds or Hollingses.

Those same Democrats still dominated the South pretty completely right up until the bloodbath of '94. But it would be pretty incredible to attribute that to a civil rights vote 30 years earlier.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Hey Richard,

The sound made when I hit the ground is much more likely to be a squish (like a fat bug on a windshield) than a thud.

As for Lincoln getting credit for ending slavery, yes he was president and yes he was Republican. And, as has been pointed out, he was also considered a "liberal" at the time as were most Republican party members of his day. But also remember that Lincoln's actions came long after many LIBERAL voices were raised to strongly condemn slavery. And while they weren't the same exact people who cried out for freedom from England in 1776, nor were they the same exact people who have cried out for the liberation of women, racial minorities, the disabled and mentally ill, and now gays and lesbians --- the voices are the same LIBERAL voices and the words are the same LIBERAL words and the demands are the same LIBERAL demands:

Liberté! égalité! fraternité!

You'll notice I said "liberal" (not democrat) in my original post as well as in this one (several times, in case you missed it). You'll also notice I did not say democrat once in the post that prompted your response. I am very aware that there are liberal Republicans just as there conservative Democrats. It's no fluke that liberal R's are usually referred to as LINCOLN Republicans (a very rare breed these days), whereas conservative D's are typically called Southern Democrats (nearly an endangered species).

Now that I think about it, you're sounding more and more like a Lincoln Republican these days. I hope you are at the head of what will become a very long line. In fact, you may very well be on your way to becoming a Republican Messiah!

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (8/13/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
Several phrases that Captain Google should add to his lexicon:

Dixiecrat
Southern Strategy
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
Yeah, 1994... it was all Nixon's fault baby.

http://www.nytimes.com/19...south.html

In 1990, Democrats in 13 Southern states outnumbered Republicans in the House of Representatives by 83 to 46. Now, Republicans for the first time since Reconstruction outnumber Democrats 73 to 64. For good measure, Republicans also lead the Democrats in Southern Senate seats and Governor's posts for the first time since Reconstruction.


Heh.

Of course Nixon would've smoked JFK if it weren't for those old racist Southern Democrats. So who really had a Southern strategy?

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (8/13/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
I'm not sure why you're focusing on 1994 as much as you are Rick - it doesn't particularly invalidate my point that that the process that began in 1948 with the creation of the Dixiecrats was accelerated by the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Once Nixon introduced the "Southern Strategy", joining the Republican party became an option for people in the south who still held Reconstruction against the Republican party, an option that became even more attractive with Ronald Reagan and Lee Atwater's racialist pandering through the 80's.

Were there plenty of southern democrats in 1994? Why yes there were, and plenty of northern republicans as well. But 1994 was 16 years ago, and much as you'd like to focus the debate there (for reasons I truly can't fathom), and when one looks back from 2010 to 1948 (which is just another point on a continuum, useful and interesting only because it was a tipping point with regards to the addition of an anti-lynching plank to the national democratic platform) one sees a realignment of the national parties, due in part to racial politics.

I'm leaving many side issues out of the discussion here that should probably be brought in as well, i.e. Roe v Wade, the introduction of explicitly evangelical identity politics and the effect of the "culture war" on politics, etc, etc.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
The funny thing about circular reasoning/posting is that eventually you get back to the starting point.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 11 years ago
This thread is over 100 posts and Rick still hasn't answered Amorette's question.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
Please elaborate Richard - I don't think I'm guilty here of a tautology, but I could be wrong.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Somewhere in here you could rewrite some Shakespeare to compare Rick, Republicans, feces, and roses. Rick will be a bigot whether you call him Abe Lincoln or Montague.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Bridgier said: "I may be wrong, but I don't think so."

That's just the opposite of me, Bridgier. My personal motto is:

"Frequently wrong, but never in doubt."

Of course, Richard or Rick could have told you that....
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
Please elaborate Richard - I don't think I'm guilty here of a tautology, but I could be wrong.


I was more amused by the circuitous nature of Rick's posts. Given enough time, the thread will morph from Nixon and the 1994 election back to gay rights.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
And back to gay rights. . .

What is the legal reason for denying marriage to gays? How will allowing gay marriage damage straight marriage? What is the state's interest in discriminating against one class of citizens?

Is that a cricket I hear?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
The main point of 1994, Bridgier, was how long after 1964 it was.
It's a pretty tough sell to tell the cops "hey, I'm not with that guy" after he was hanging out in your basement for 30 years after the crime.

It's kinda comical though that a national election 16 years ago is irrelevant, yet a 60-year old Democratic platform show-vote is a key indicator of motive.

But my main point is you're painting with an intentionally broad brush to connect dots that don't go together. At least not nearly as well as the dots you're trying hard to ignore.

Amorette, are you saying that the government never gives special status or protection to certain groups or classes of people?

And asking someone why they would deny anyone their 'rights' is a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question.

More accusation then question. Your definition of 'rights' and mine differ.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
You haven't answered my question. What is the legal basis for denying marriage to gays? What is the state's vested interest in not permitting gays to be married? What argument can be made to the court that justifies discrimination? And pretending that a 'right' is not a 'right' unless you think it is is just dodging the question.

Amorette, are you saying that the government never gives special status or protection to certain groups or classes of people?
Do you mean that denying someone their rights is a 'special status or protection?' How does that figure? Or do you mean that straight marriages must have 'special status or protection?' If so, what are they being protected from? What will gay marriage do to damage straight marriage?

Just give me a simple, straightforward, legal argument that shows me and everyone like me that denying gays the right to marriage is in the best interest of the state. Change my mind with logical, legal reasoning.

[This message has been edited by Amorette Allison (8/15/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
Amorette, Marriage is no more a right than a job, or housing, food, a car etc. Probably even less so. If you gave most people the choice between a gov't piece of paper that said "Marriage" and a job, they'd pick the latter.

But I've never heard it said that a Job is a right.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
Okay, so you don't define marriage as a 'right,' like voting.

Why does the state have to deny permission to form a particular type of legal contract to gay people? How does denying gay people marriage--whether it is a right or not--improve the state? How does gay marriage damage straight marriage or any other legal contract?

Those bits, the really important bits, are still not answered.

I am still waiting. If I can concede marriage is a not a legal right, granted to any qualified citizen, then you still need to explain WHY forbidding gay marriage is in the best interest of the state.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
What is the argument that proves the state's interest to deny gays marriage?


What is the argument that proves the state's interest to allow heterosexual marriage? In both cases, is it really any of the state's business? I have often wondered as I have filled out various forms that ask for marital status, "what difference does this make". Do they give people that are divorced different antibiotics for a sinus infection than they give me?

If we are serious about personal freedom, it seems to me we need to get the government out of the entire issue. The desire to have a government stamp of approval/control on marital relationships, be they heterosexual or otherwise is misplaced. IMO the wrong question is being asked. We should be asking what the government is involved in this matter at all. The fact the government is involved in the first place is really not something to "Woo hoo" about.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (8/16/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
Wingnuts/teabaggers only complain about government involvement only when the wingnut/teabagger disagrees with what the government does.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
You're asking it in the wrong direction, Amorette. This isn't about state denial, it's about state recognition.

The question is, what interest does the state have in recognizing same-sex marriage?

And again, remembering that most of the 'legal contract' arguments are taken away, considering this is California.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
What is the argument that proves the state's interest to allow heterosexual marriage?


The state's interest is that marriage promotes stability and order within society. Being married confers certain easily recognized rights to the spouses, such as the right to make end-of-life decisions for the other spouse, and the transfer of property after death or upon separation from the other spouse. It's hard enough determining these rights with marriage; without a marriage certificate it gets ridiculously muddled. It's in the state's interest of promoting consistency and order by supporting marriage.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
Rickenhawk wrote:
And again, remembering that most of the 'legal contract' arguments are taken away, considering this is California.




The same man making the slippery slope argument is now saying "legal contract" arguments don't matter because the case is limited to California.

Inconsistent much?
Top
Posted by Diane Emeney (+492) 11 years ago
So, my question is....Why exactly is gay marriage so important?
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1272) 11 years ago
Wendy,

I can agree with your statements. But (to others I ask) what concern does the state have other than that? If its only used to help with things such as your examples (as it is with "straight" marrage), then what difference does it make who is getting married? Shouldn't it be the same no matter who the people are (within legality-- no dogs, brothers, etc. - Just because I know Rick would go there). Shouldn't gays be allowed to pick who will get their estate, who will be in a hospital room, who can make end of life decisions, etc.? The government automatically gives those rights to married - straight- couples. Gay couples, no matter how long they have been together, will never be able to legally make those decisions for their loved ones.

It IS about civil rights, and it in no way infringes upon anyone else's rights to allow it. Amorette is right, and her questions are valid and without sound answer.
Top
Posted by ABE (+421) 11 years ago
Separation of church and state.
If that is true, why can people get married at the court house,
yet the 10 commandments can't be there? Do they use the bible? Oh No, a government employee reading the bible at work,out loud, oh no!

Whole issue is just politics, Who cares if they get married, whats it hurting, nothing.
If your one of those people that says it hurts the sanctity of marriage, then what about all the straight people running around cheating and doing worse, or is that better for some reason?
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 11 years ago
Diane:

See Wendy's last post.

Rick:

When are you going to quit dancing around Amorette's question and just answer it?
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 11 years ago
Ummm....Kelly....I've been posting on mc.com for over seven years now, and I can't recall Rick ever answering a question.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
Or making a coherent argument.
Top
Posted by Gail Finch Shipek (+94) 11 years ago
Shouldn't gays be allowed to pick who will get their estate, who will be in a hospital room, who can make end of life decisions, etc.?


I do believe a person can will their estate to whomever they wish. They just need to make sure they have a will.

I know that a person can designate whomever they wish to make their end of life decisions for them. I have been in this position for a friend. I was allowed this because she filled out her medical power of attorney forms and designated me as alternate. The primary person was out of town at the time. The doctors, nurses, and hospice workers all respected my authority conveyed by this non-notarized piece of paper.

I think these two issues are just smoke.

As for income tax and the "married" designation, there may be a benefit there.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
If your next of kin decides to make a decision that contravenes your "living will", a hospital will oftentimes do what the next of kin desires, regardless of what your "living will" states.

IANAL, but I believe that the concept of "spouse is next of kin" is part of what legally defines marriage, and is therefore more than just "smoke".
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
I thought this was a very interesting and eye-opening article on this topic. Highly recommended!

http://www.nytimes.com/20...5rich.html

[Edited by MilesCity.com Webmaster to fix the link]
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 11 years ago
Gail:

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Family can always trump those documents. Since I lived in Southern California for a long time, I heard of more than one instance where a gay person's partner was denied access even with those documents in place.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 11 years ago
Excellent article Steve, thanks for sharing it...Here is a clearer link...
http://www.nytimes.com/20....html?_r=1
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
You guys are missing a key point.

Homos aren't SUPPOSED to have rights because homosexuality is a SIN. Of course a family member is supposed to have precedence over the homosexual's partner, even if said family member hasn't been in contact for 30 years.


As I've stated before, you're wasting your time trying to have a logical argument with the bigots on this thread.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
Getting all the necessary legal documents to allow a same-sex partner the same legal rights as comes with a marriage license involves usually big bucks and lawyers. A marriage license is $100, tops. for the same rights. And if the paperwork isn't perfect and an angry blood relative shows up, sorry, we don't care how long you were together, piss off.

Marriage is a legal contract providing certain RIGHTS on inheritance, decision-making, etc. for a committed couple. There is another type of marriage, the fancy schmancy in a church kind, but that doesn't count UNLESS a legal, state-issured license is provided and the person performing the ceremony is state authorized. That type of marriage is not under discussion. It is the purely legal, contractual one. The one the state is involved in because it involves legal contracts.

Allowing long-time, committed partners to save money on lawyers seems like a reasonable goal to me and one that will have no effect on persons already in that contracted position. What is the state's vested interest in denying committed partners from saving money?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
within legality-- no dogs, brothers, etc. - Just because I know Rick would go there


Not so much with dogs... no consent there... but brothers? absolutely.

One of the common beefs I've always heard about is health coverage for gay couples. But if it were your brother, instead of your boyfriend who needed the coverage.... where's the equal protection there?

You can't on the one hand carve out a new limited niche for 'equal protection' while on the other cry that niches are unconstitutional. Not if this is really about equal protection.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
Rickenhawk is in favor of equal protection.......for white, Christian, heterosexuals. All others need not apply.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
The state's interest is that marriage promotes stability and order within society.


It's not the word with the power, it's the institution. You can change all the ingredients if you want, but labeling it as the same product is misleading.

What effect it will have in the long term is not well understood.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
One of the common beefs I've always heard about is health coverage for gay couples. But if it were your brother, instead of your boyfriend who needed the coverage.... where's the equal protection there?


Arguments such as these are ridiculous smokescreens. If the world was like the "good old days", which is what we are obviously aspiring to (you know, back when daddies were in the homes), the U.S. population, which is fairly evenly split down the middle between males and females, would all be heterosexual and would all marry. Benefits, such as health insurance, would be provided for every couple, which would be a much bigger drain on society's resources.

Why is it okay to provide the benefit when the couple is heterosexual, but not when the couple is homosexual? There are still the same number of people in the U.S., with the same potential financial outlay for benefits. This argument also implies that there is a tipping point where our society can no longer afford these all important benefits. Who is at our Clerk of Court's Office monitoring this balance?

"I'm sorry Jim and Sandy, but the couple before you just put the U.S. over the line for available benefit resources. Come back tomorrow, maybe someone will have died to free up that health insurance for you, and then maybe we can issue you a marriage license."

but labeling it as the same product is misleading.


Not if you offer the same product.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
Because relationships between siblings generally don't include taking care of them as adults unless they are in some way disabled. And for the 10,000th time. . .


THE TOPIC IS GAY MARRIAGE!

Why should gays be denied marriage?

Brothers, dogs, cousins, don't enter into it. Those are other subjects being thrown up as desperate smokescreens because you can't answer the basic question!

WHY SHOULD GAYS BE DENIED THE SAME LEGAL PROTECTIONS AS ARE OFFERED STRAIGHTS?
Top
Posted by Gail Finch Shipek (+94) 11 years ago
http://www.xtra.ca/public...-5549.aspx

Interesting 2008 article. Long, but worth reading.

It addresses so many of the facets of the issue.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
Benefits, such as health insurance, would be provided for every couple, which would be a much bigger drain on society's resources.


That's funny because the whole premise of Obamacare was that more health insurance equaled more savins' for everyone.

Ah well.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
Instead of bringing up a completed unrelated topic (ObamaCare), can you answer the question as to how your argument makes sense? The American population is roughly 50% male and 50% female. That means that Bobby and his son Jim wouldn't need to get married to each other to have benefits. There is pretty much a corresponding male for every female.

One could argue that the greatest drain on financial resources for benefits would be if all people were heterosexual and all people married. Then all of the American population could be seeking benefits of one kind or another. If people are so willing to defraud the system, they will defraud the system. Making up ludicrous scenarios undermines your argument.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
AND THE QUESTION IS NOT ANSWERED AGAIN!

Stop wandering off topic and answer the d*mn question? Why should the state deny the same legal contractual rights to gay couples in a longterm, committed relationship that are permitted to straight couples in the same type of relationship?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
Good news

Hawaii already values true equal protection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w..._in_Hawaii

Now if only we can get the redneck progressives in all the other states to get on board with equal 'rights'
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
What the procreate is your point Rick? Answer Amorette's question, and quit pretending that "If you don't support Y+Z, then somehow my position of Y-X is validated"

And then you wonder why people don't give you the benefit of the doubt.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 11 years ago
Ah leave Rick alone. 90% of people don't give a crap about gay marriage one way or the other. This is about being right and reinforcing your world view. Gay marriage is just another wedge in the cultural divide. Reason has no place in this sort of discussion.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
I'd be interested in knowing where I've stepped into unreason here Levi...
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
90% of people don't give a crap about gay marriage one way or the other.


Levi, that sure has not been my experience, around here anyway.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
90% of people don't give a crap about wouldn't be affected by gay marriage one way or the other


I think this is a more accurate statement.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
I can think of at least one example of a dude who had terrible concerns about the sanctity of marriage. He's even a member of a Facebook group called "One Woman - One Man" - my friend is nailing his wife.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
I think we can go back to WHO HOO now. There is no logical reason to deny gays the right to marry. No legal one, either.

Next, the 9ers, then the Supremes, then common sense can kick in and those folks who want to marry their sheep can start on their legal appeals.

VICTORY!!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
I think Levi's worldview needs to hire a new pollster.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6383353/

Why should the state deny the same legal contractual rights to gay couples in a longterm, committed relationship


Heh. I wonder who's going to be 'standing at the Clerk of Court's office' working out that litmus test.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3712) 11 years ago
I'd be interested in knowing where I've stepped into unreason here Levi...


I didn't say that you had, only that reasoned discussion is inappropriate in an issue like this. (I was being sarcastic)

And when I say people don't give a crap, I mean that they wouldn't give a crap if they were left to their own devices. They care because politicians and the media have made it into a big us vs. them deal and whipped everyone into a frenzy about it, which is great for the politicians because it distracts us from the real issues and lets them show people how they are different than "the other guys" without having to do anything to upset their bosses campaign contributers.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
Not to beat a dead horse, but alot of this relates back to the fact that the founders really expected this stuff to be dealt with at the state and local level.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
Why should the state deny the same legal contractual rights to gay couples in a longterm, committed relationship that are permitted to straight couples in the same type of relationship?


Before you declare "victory"...

The last I knew, lesbians don't have the "equipment" necessary to create a one-flesh relationship and consummate the union. So it really isn't the same type of relationship, now is it. Using the word "marriage" to describe a homosexual relationship, when the parties can not create the one-flesh relationship is misuse of the term "marriage" from a legal point of view.

The states' interest in denying the use of the term "marriage" is appropriate because the parties involved in said relationship can't create the one-flesh union and consummate the relationship. You can pretend all you want, but it just isn't the same kind of union. The state has an obligation to preserve legal definitions to maintain an orderly society.

Marriage as the union of one male and one female has been thought to be so basic that it is not ordinarily specifically expressed by statute. The courts over the years have upheld this understanding whenever it has been challenged. The concept of marriage being between a man and woman is universally held regardless of culture, religious belief, or race since the beginning of time.

Definitions are important. Given the the multitude of references to "marriage" in our federal and state statutes and regulations, redefining the word "marriage" to have a different legal meaning is NOT logical or necessary. It will undoubtably create substantial confusion and unintended consequence in our legal system. As Wendy pointed out, the state regulates marriage to keep order in society. We should the avoid the opportunity to become an even more litigious society.

Having said all of that, granting all of the legal rights afforded to heterosexual couples through civil unions to homosexual couples IMO would be a plausible alternative.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
Richard, Richard, Richard.

How does the law define consummation? Then, I'm assuming we must ask how the law defines sexual intercourse, which usually is part of the definition of consummation. I'm afraid we are harkening back to Clinton and his Lewinsky days with this conversation.

What about older people, or people with ED, who are not able to "consummate" the relationship? Are we delving into their personal lives to issue them a license?

Also, you've addressed lesbians. What about gay men?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Ewwwwwww!!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Oh yeah, Amorette's right. This has been a show of two guys who are horribly uncomfortable with their manhood and really, that's all. Consummate the marriage? That's something I CAN do with a sheep.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
Rickenhawk wrote:
Not to beat a dead horse, but alot of this relates back to the fact that the founders really expected this stuff to be dealt with at the state and local level.



As always, Rickenhawk knows the intent of the Founding Fathers.

It's amazing, but their intentions always match Rickenhawk's current position. Just amazing.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
This has been a show of two guys who are horribly uncomfortable with their manhood and really, that's all.


I am very very comfortable with my manhood.

My ultimate goal in this thread has been to try and find common ground and accommodate everyone as much as possible. Civility requires that we all reconsider our position and adjust where possible. Those asking the same question 120 times, because they are intent on cramming victory down the "opposition's" throat, ought to see if there is anyway they can adjust their point of view.
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1272) 11 years ago
Richard,

Your statement

"when the parties can not create the one-flesh relationship is misuse of the term "marriage" from a legal point of view"

is not a legal view, but a biblical one.

The law should not care, as has been pointed out, that you can procreate. The law should only be concerned with "legal" matters... IE: what rights and responsiblities come with "marrage". The only reason anyone refers to the biblical ideas is because of biblical beliefs, not legal ones.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
Cory:

For some people here, the legal view and the Biblical view are synonymous.


In fact, the Biblical view may trump the legal view.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
Oh Richard... a definition of marriage from natural law? I'd rather you'd used Leviticus
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
I maintain my position that anyone who is comfortable with themselves shouldn't be terrified by the proposition of two men lovingly consummating their unnatural relationship again and again and again so long as they keep their piratery to themselves.

Richard, you truly are improving. Rick needs to eat more tiger penis and shark balls - it's working in Asia, they are so comfortable with themselves that they have those great transgender pageants. You think marriage makes you uncomfortable? Check out some of those fine mind benders.
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1272) 11 years ago
Lisa Bloom on CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2010/O...tml?hpt=C2

Editor's note: Lisa Bloom is the managing partner of The Bloom Firm, where she practices civil and criminal law.

(CNN) -- There's a big difference between a political debate about same-sex marriage and the recent hard-fought court challenge to the California ban, Proposition 8.

In politics, anything goes: Vague, sinister comments about same-sex marriage threatening children or undermining the sanctity of heterosexual marriage were prevalent during the Prop 8 campaign. In court, same-sex marriage opponents needed solid evidence to back up these and other claims.

Despite "able and energetic counsel," they never produced it. That's why they lost, resoundingly, in the federal district court. And that lack of evidence should dog opponents up through the chain of appeals that is now beginning, because appellate courts are required to review only the evidence in the court record and to give great deference to Judge Vaughn Walker's findings of fact. He was there, after all, presiding over the trial, and the appellate judges weren't.

And what a lopsided trial he presided over. All the anti-same-sex marriage arguments imploded when subjected to the rules of evidence.

"You don't have to have evidence of this point," counsel responded to the judge's question asking what support existed for their claim that "responsible procreation is really at the heart of society's interest in regulating marriage."

No, sorry, at trial, you do have to have evidence. Of this point and every point. (And since -- as even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once pointed out in another case -- the sterile and elderly are allowed to marry, it can't be all about procreation.)

Trials turn on admissible evidence -- primarily credible witness testimony or documents, in this type of case. And Prop 8 proponents did not have it. Over and over again, Walker's decision focused on the evidence, the mountain of reliable facts offered by gay marriage advocates, and the glaring lack thereof proffered by gay marriage opponents.

The same-sex-marriage advocates presented eight lay witnesses and nine expert witnesses.

One plaintiff testified that marriage would be a way to tell "our friends, our family ... that this is a lifetime commitment ... we are not girlfriends. We are not partners. We are married." The other three presented similarly compelling, credible testimony about the damage to their dignity, the economic losses, the sting of discrimination they suffered daily due to their legally enshrined second-class citizenship.

Proposition 8: A timeline

Opponents offered exactly zero lay witnesses to explain, say, how their heterosexual marriages would be undermined by same-sex marriage, or how children would be harmed by a neighbor's same-sex marriage -- though these were central arguments made during the Prop 8 campaign.

The evidence at trial proved that children raised by gay or lesbian couples are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. That gay folks are no more likely to be child molesters than heterosexuals. That marriage has evolved in this country to allow for women's equality and interracial marriage. That no "undermining" of straight marriage would occur if marriage further evolved to allow same-sex couples to marry, too.

This evidence was put forward by an impressive roster of Harvard and Yale marriage historians, UMass Amherst and UCLA School of Law economists, a UCLA psychology professor, a Columbia University epidemiologist, a psychologist and a political scientist. Many had written extensive peer-reviewed articles and books in their areas of expertise. All their testimony withstood full and fair cross-examination.

On the other side, pretrial, same-sex marriage opponents had designated a number of witnesses. But when push came to shove, at trial they elected not to call most of them. Walker pointed out that they didn't call a single official proponent of Prop 8 to explain the discrepancies between the arguments in favor of Prop 8 presented to voters and the arguments presented in court. Ouch.

In a nice trial "gotcha" moment, gay marriage advocates read in deposition testimony from two witnesses who were to testify for the other side -- yet their pretrial testimony instead supported the gay marriage advocates. Opponents offered no explanation for why their witnesses flipped. Another embarrassment.

Ultimately, same-sex marriage opponents called only two witness, the founder of the Institute for American Values, who the court found lacked qualifications to offer expert testimony, and a Claremont College professor, who "sought to rebut only a limited aspect" of the plaintiffs' case.

Here's the kind of "evidence" gay marriage opponents offered at trial: Homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children, their witness argued, and allowing same-sex marriage would cause states "to fall into Satan's hands." The witness' source of information? "The internet."

There's not a judge in this country who could rely on "evidence" like that.

Walker made 80 meticulous, detailed findings of fact on every aspect of marriage, with hundreds of citations to the evidence cited at trial. Perhaps the most critical finding was No. 58: "Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including ... gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals."

Ultimately, Walker found, that was the heart of what same-sex marriage opponents advanced: "a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples." Constitutionally, in a country that guarantees all Americans "equal protection" of the laws, that is unacceptable.

Given all these detailed evidentiary findings that follow ineluctably from the marriage opponents' failure to put on much of a case at all, and given Walker's finding that Prop 8 violated two separate constitutional provisions -- the due process and equal protection clauses -- it will be extremely difficult for an appellate court, following well-established rules of deference to lower court findings, to reverse.
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1272) 11 years ago
Richard,

I used to believe that accepting "civil unions" was the way to go because it was more acceptable to the masses, thus reducing the fight. Now I believe that calling it that is only to make it more palatable to the masses. "Meeting half way" like that is akin to letting the blacks sit in the middle of the bus or raising the drinking fountain a little higher, but not quite as high as the one for whites because it is "acceptable" to the masses. Civil rights are not based upon common ground or agreement. They are for everyone.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Cory - great article. Thanks.

Sometime back Richard said:
The last I knew, lesbians don't have the "equipment" necessary to create a one-flesh relationship and consummate the union. So it really isn't the same type of relationship, now is it. Using the word "marriage" to describe a homosexual relationship, when the parties can not create the one-flesh relationship is misuse of the term "marriage" from a legal point of view.


Errr... Okee, Dokey. The Truth is finally revealed. The sanctity of marriage comes down to the simple mechanical aspect of being able to insert Tab A into Slot B. Amazing. So why oh why oh why didn't the Prop 8 proponents bring that evidence into court?

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (8/18/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Scissor me timbers
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17052) 11 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 11 years ago
An interesting article by Rita Nakashima Brock, PhD...

Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to allow resumption of legal same-sex weddings in California has right-wing Christians claiming his ruling against Proposition 8 threatens "Bible believing Christians." I've read the Bible pretty carefully myself (I read it cover to cover when I was in high school) and even taught it as a college professor. It is not a source I'd turn to in order to defend traditional marriage, but I think it does offer ways to think about ethical marriage.

The Bible presents multiple views of marriage, and most actual marriages it depicts are terrible by modern standards. "Traditional marriages" in ancient biblical times were arranged as transfers of the ownership of daughters. The tenth commandment lists wives among properties like houses and slaves: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor" (Exodus 20:17, also found in Deuteronomy 5:21). Marriages occurred via deception, kidnapping, adulterous seductions, theft, rape, and murder, and were often in multiples so that the pater familias could amass land, flocks, and progeny and cement political alliances. Abraham, David, and Solomon had marriages that would be illegal today. The book of Hosea likens the mercy of God to a husband who has the right to beat or kill his adulterous wife, but spares her -- for this, she was supposed to be grateful. When women seek marriages, such as Naomi arranged for Ruth, it was to avoid an even worse fate such as destitution.

The ideal of a housewife that Diana Butler Bass recently lifted up in Proverbs 31 suggests that a decent married life for women might have been possible in biblical times, but actual examples are rare. It's a telling fact that at Christian weddings today, passages of scripture used in the service mostly avoid marriage texts. They extol love between two women ("[M]y people shall be your people" [Ruth 1]) or communitarian values ("The greatest of these is love" [I Corinthians 13]) or erotic passion between unmarried lovers ("[S]et me as a seal upon your heart" [Song of Songs]). (Some people are shocked to find Song of Songs in the Bible at all.)

In the Christian section of the Bible, Jesus and Paul disagreed about what marriage was supposed to be. The difference between them is striking: Jesus thinks of marriage as divinely sanctified while Paul thinks of it as an option for the morally weak who need to avoid fornicating. They lived around the same time, and both were Jews, so it's a bit puzzling why they differ so radically, perhaps as puzzling as why, today, some Christians vehemently oppose marriage equality while others like myself support it. Even evangelicals differ; poll data show that in 2008, 84 percent of those under age 30 supported same-sex civil unions or outright marriage equality while only 54 percent of their elders did.

So let's at least get clear about one important fact: there is no Christian view of marriage; there are different Christian views, even if you follow the Bible. For over a millennium, the Christian church in Europe leaned toward Paul. It did not sanctify marriage but regarded it as a civil ceremony instead.

Paul, a citizen of the Roman Empire, spent time in jail for opposing that Empire, and his negative view of marriage was probably another form or resistance. Other celibate religious movements of his time also saw avoidance of marriage and procreation as a form of resistance to the Empire and a sign of a new kind of religious society. Why was marriage such a huge political issue during Paul's time?

During the two decades before Jesus was born, the Roman Empire passed a slew of marriage laws that forced marriage on all Roman citizens. To have enough tax revenues and soldiers for its military legions, the empire needed an expanding citizen population, but the population was shrinking. The situation was dire because average life expectancy was only 25 years, and two thirds of all infants died. Just to stay even, the state required a five-child birthrate per woman. Many elite Roman families resented military conscription of their sons and found the tax burdens excessive. Hence, refusing to marry was a way to resist imperial exploitation.

In addition to such political pressures, Paul may also have rejected marriage because it separated sex and love. Under Roman marriage laws and customs, sex was a function of male domination and aggression. Princeton historian Peter Brown, in his study of this period, The Body and Society, wryly remarks that the Romans viewed male adolescents as "human espresso machines"; they were always near a sexual boil, ready to erupt. In her careful study of documents from this period, Bernadette Brooten, in Love Between Women, notes that a pater familias could have sex with anyone under his authority and economic control, which mean virtually any female, as well as boys and male slaves. The only people a head of household could not have sex with were his equals or superiors, including female superiors, like goddesses or his mother. E. J. Graff in her book, What is Marriage For?, notes that rape of the bride was commonly expected, and in wedding ceremonies, the groom and father-in-law exchanged the vows, since women were exchanged as property and could not take vows. While marriages might have love in them, this was not expected.

For women in marriage, sex was for procreation -- a dangerous destiny at a time without reliable birth control or adequate maternal medical care. That women had sexual desires and enjoyed sex was not doubted, but respectable women confined these to the marriage bed. Brooten found that while homosexual orientations were regarded as immutably determined by astrological influences, lesbianism was regarded as a medical disorder because sex as domination and subordination were crucial. Women's sexual relationships lacked a dominant inserter and subordinate receiver and were, thus, an unnatural disorder. The construction of sex as male dominance may be why conservatives obsess over rare biblical texts against homosexual practices, while, like the C Street "Family," they think of male heterosexual adultery, condemned in their beloved 10 commandments, as a lesser sin, since so many biblical patriarchs were adulterers. The sin more frequently condemned is usury, but I digress...

Paul believed love was the highest value, whereas sex was a problem. Paul advocated abstinence, though this suggestion has led some to regard him as psychologically disturbed. Ironically, current condemnations of his version of ascetic Christianity exist side-by-side with great admiration for monastic figures such as the Dalai Lama. But religious abstinence is another discussion.

Jesus' view of marriage in Matthew 19 was not the Roman version. He turned to the Jewish scriptures in Genesis 2. Conservatives like to use Genesis 2 to defend marriage as between one man and one woman for procreative purposes only (i.e., as authorizing sex between one dominant inserter and one subordinate receiver). However, I don't think this is what Jesus meant.

A careful look at Genesis, provided by scholar Phyllis Trible, offers an interesting alternative to the conservative view. She notes that God creates an earthling, adam (i.e., a being made of earth, ha'adama; adam in the Hebrew is not a proper name until later in the story), and breathes divine spirit into him to make him come alive. All the animals are insufficient to satisfy the adam's needs for a helper. Ezer kenegdo, translated "help meet," literally means an equal helper. Help, by itself, referred to a superior, such as God. Hence, the addition of kenegdo, surrounding, modified ezer to suggest an equal. So God divides adam into ish, male, and issha, female. Made of the flesh of adam, Eve is neither superior nor subordinate to Adam. Given that the woman's subordination to the man and painful childbirth were a punishment for the two having sinned in Genesis 3, I think the decision goes against "traditional marriage" as divinely ordained. Inside paradise, God intended relationships based on equality.

Jesus had to go back to the paradise garden to find a model of what he thought marriage ought to be. Given that model, he observed that Moses created divorce because men behaved badly (he calls them hard-hearted, which suggests unloving), which might be understood as a condemnation of traditional marriage. He also conceded that the demands of marriage were not for everyone, and remaining unmarried was OK.

Arguments for California's Prop 8, which Judge Walker overturned, narrowed the purpose of marriage to procreation. Neither Paul nor Jesus explicitly mentioned procreation as a reason for marriage. While I don't think Jesus was talking about same-sex marriages, his reference to Genesis 2 grounded marriage in equality and companionship. While Jesus and Paul differ on marriage, they differ for the same reason. They uphold love as the highest divine good, not women's subordination. In fact, because of the nasty history of institutional marriage in the Bible and heterosexist civil laws that are built on male dominance and female subordination, I think marriage equality means such gender inequality will no longer be inscribed as a necessary basis of marriage.

In his carefully written decision, Judge Walker remarked on changes that have eliminated most of the values and reasons for traditional marriage. He noted that marriage had recently been transformed "from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals" (p. 112). The changes also reflect cultural ideas that marriage is a union of sex with love. They do not nullify marriage per se:

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed. (p. 113)
Judge Walker ruled that the state's interest in marriage is guided by the rights of equal protection, not by religion, and that religious ideas should not determine marriage law. He has, for the time being, restored legal same-sex weddings as a right than cannot be decided by majority vote.

A number of Christian groups in California, as well as Reformed Jews and Unitarian Universalists, would agree. Prop 8 denied us our religious freedom by prohibiting us from authorizing same-sex marriages, but, even worse, it denied the basic human right of marriage to a group of people based on unfounded biases about their sexual orientation. Same-sex couples, like heterosexual couples, offer each other love, companionship, and a stable family environment for raising children. If marriage is good for society, and equality is the ethical basis for marriage, then gender difference is irrelevant. Marriage equality is good for everyone, including Bible-believing Christians.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
Great article, Kelly. I have always wondered about Paul's attitude toward marriage and women in general. I think there's an argument for saying that he was very misogynistic and a little off his rocker.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 11 years ago
From what I remember of his letters to the Corinthians, Paul didn't like the homos very much.

This would make him Rickenhawk and Richard's favorite disciple.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 11 years ago
Paul is just upset that homosexuals like Peter better!
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
So, if marriage is all about inserting a penis into a bodily orifice, gay men's marriage should be twice as sanctified as straight folks.

That has to be the stupidest argument yet, Sorry, Richard, I do respect you but you have GOT to be kidding. Marriage is based inserting a penis into a vagina? Then are all rapists married to their victims? Does every act of casual sex lead to marriage?

I see marriage as a legal contract. What happens to the sex organs is of less concern than survivorship rights. SEX and MARRIAGE are two different things. And that is what this ruling concerns. The LEGAL aspects of a state certified contract.

Sheesh.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
As an aside, many definitions of sexual intercourse (which is used to define the term consummation) include penetration, followed by orgasm.

Just a thought for the many unfortunate women out there. Using Richard's logic, not only were you shafted, pun intended, in the bedroom, you may not be legally married as well.

Also, a little more seriously, Richard, check different state's laws, which are used to issue criminal jury instructions. I think that you will find "sexual intercourse" is not as narrowly defined as you seem to think.

[This message has been edited by Denise Selk (8/18/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
I think that you will find "sexual intercourse" is not as narrowly defined as you seem to think.


It's certainly not when you go to donate blood.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
And what a lopsided trial he presided over. All the anti-same-sex marriage arguments imploded when subjected to the rules of evidence.

"You don't have to have evidence of this point," counsel responded to the judge's question asking what support existed for their claim that "responsible procreation is really at the heart of society's interest in regulating marriage."


Sorry, but that is one thorough Breitbarting if I've ever seen one.

We'll have to seek a ruling from Bridgier to see if people's CNN posting privileges need to be revoked.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 11 years ago
Rick:

When are you going to answer Amorette's question? Man up.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
I have answered numerous times.

Not liking the answer doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 11 years ago
Skirting the question does not an answer make.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
I'll just refer you to what the defense cited as law and precedent as it stands. I've given my reasons. They coincide with reasons already accepted by the courts.

This is from the trial transcript that CNN and Judge Walker decided to hack to bits...


THE COURT: I don't mean to be flip, but Blackstone
17 didn't testify. Kingsley Davis didn't testify. What testimony
18 in this case supports the proposition?
19 MR. COOPER: Your Honor, these materials are before
20 you. They are evidence before you.
21 But Mr. Blankenhorn brought forward, brought forward
22 these authorities and that's -- and that's these social
23 scientists and anthropologists and sociologists and the others.
24 But, your Honor, you don't have to have evidence for
25 this from these authorities. This is in the cases themselves.
1 The cases recognize this one after another.
2 THE COURT: I don't have to have evidence?
3 MR. COOPER: You don't have to have evidence of this
4 point
if one court after another has recognized -- let me turn
5 to the California cases on this.
6 The first purpose of matrimony by the laws of nature
7 and society is procreation. The California Supreme Court said
8 that shortly after statehood.
9 A century later, the California Supreme Court
10 re-emphasized that the institution of marriage serves the
11 public interest because it channels biological drives --
12 channels biological drives -- that might otherwise become
13 socially destructive and it ensures the care and education of
14 children in a stable environment.
15 That's the California Supreme Court, your Honor.
16 That's the purpose of marriage in this state, according to the
17 California Supreme Court in DeBerg against DeBerg.
18 Two years ago, less than two years ago, the
19 California Court of Appeals held that the sexual procreative
20 and child rearing aspects of marriage go to the very essence of
21 the marriage relation.
22 Your Honor, Congress in passing DOMA said the core
23 purpose of marriage is this:
24 "At bottom, civil society has an interest in
25 maintaining and protecting the institution of
1 heterosexual marriage because it has a deep
2 and abiding interest in encouraging
3 responsible procreation and child rearing.
4 Simply put, government has an interest in
5 marriage because it has an interest in
6 children."
7 Your Honor, most courts, most of the courts, quite a
8 substantial majority of the courts that have looked at the
9 issue that is before you now have upheld the constitutionality
10 of the traditional definition of marriage because -- and these
11 are the Eighth Circuit's words -- in upholding a provision
12 enacted by the people of Nebraska that is word for word
13 identical to the one before you.
14 It upheld it because -- this is the Eighth Circuit
15 Court of Appeals in 2006.
16 "The state's interest in steering procreation
17 into marriage justifies conferring the
18 inducements of marital recognition and
19 benefits on opposite-sex couples who can
20 otherwise produce children by accident, but
21 not on same-sex couples who cannot."


http://www.equalrightsfou...mended.pdf

There's plenty more, if you want to read it. I bolded the part that Judge Walker hacksawed out to help reach his incoherent decision. There was plenty of evidence, and very strong precedent.

Judge Walker just decided that testimony about people's "fee fee's" was the only kind of evidence he wanted admitted. He ignored all legal standards in doing what he did. He ignored both Federal Court of Appeals and Supreme Court precedent. As a lower court, he had no authority to do that. Hall of Shame material. He should really be impeached for the kind of garbage he pulled.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
He asked for evidence. It could not be produced. I don't see why you should impeach a good, conservative Republican judge for requiring evidence be produced. That's how the court works. Evidence is presented. It wasn't.

And YOU STILL HAVE NOT SAID HOW GAY MARRIAGE WILL DAMAGE STRAIGHT MARRIAGE. You have danced around it and changed the subject and pretended deafness and quoted Glenn Beck but you have not given a straight answer. (Pardon the pun.)

We can all see that, even if you can't. You have avoided the question and will continue to avoid the question for the simple reason that you know as well as any sane person does that the answer is

It will not damage straight marriage in any way, shape or form.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
You keep shifting the question. Federally-endorsed Burt Bacharach fan club memberships probably wouldn't HARM marriage either.

That doesn't make it something the federal government should involve itself in.

The courts have outlined for you, right there above in the text, what the State's interest in traditional marriage is.

That's not me talking. Those are State supreme courts... Federal appeals courts. So far, that explanation has been good enough, other than for this one kook with axes he's working hard to sharpen.

There's your answer. If it's not good enough, take it up with them.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
channels biological drives -- that might otherwise become
socially destructive


Yes, because marriage is necessary to "channel" biological drives. I guess over 95% of Americans missed that memo.

Very convincing evidence.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Rick's cracker has become very cheeseless.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
Amorette,

I believe Ricky has answered your question. He believes that marriage equality will damage families, and therefore society, of which he is a part. That is his belief. He has stated it repeatedly. That is not to say that his belief cannot, and should not, be challenged, which is the purpose of discussion.

As has been said ad nauseam, the same reasonings were given to deny women and blacks the right to vote. Extending those rights, it was argued at the time, would damage society as well.

Oops. I guess they were wrong then too.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
That doesn't make it something the federal government should involve itself in.


So, you feel the ruling in California should stand: that the persons opposed to gay marriage did not provide enough evidence to prove that it was in the state's vested interest to discriminate against same sex couples.

Okay. Now we are getting somewhere. So, gay marriage can be okay in some states.

Did you know that, in 1959, an interracial couple moved to Texas because he was in the service and he was stationed there? She was told to move out of Texas because, under Texas law, their marriage was illegal. Do you feel that this was appropriate in light of interracial relationship law in 1959? Do you feel the Supreme Court should have stepped in or that hit and miss interracial marriage laws should still be allowed?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 11 years ago
Ahhh, the question changes yet again.

I've already answered it flipped that way as well, Amorette.

I'm done beating the horse. We can't agree. Time to call it a day.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Oh yeah, I forgot Rick's "facts" are whatever he believes. How is it we lose sight of that?
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
the institution of marriage serves the public interest because it channels biological drives, channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive


Now that I get past the point of laughter, doesn't this actually support the idea of marriage for all?
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
Bingo!
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
BTW: Leaky's Plumbing prides themselves in helping your pipes to "copperlate" using the latest low cost, state-of-the-art, gender neutral plumbing techniques. Swivel unions are their forte.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (8/21/2010)]
Top
Posted by luvlife (+285) 11 years ago
I took my time and read this whole....thread! I do not know Denise Selk...not only do i find her highly intelligent and right on the mark...i want to see her run for PRESIDENT someday!!! Oh, if only the world could see all of this through your eyes....what a day this would be!
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 11 years ago
I agree, luvlife....Denise expresses herself very well on these forums, and her posts are always extremely well thought through.

On a more troubling note, however.....were you to cross this plane of existence into an alternative universe where Bizarro Earth exists....Denise would turn out to be Rick Kuchynka in drag.
Top
Posted by luvlife (+285) 11 years ago
Gunnar...i admit i am new at this...but, i have to tell you that i have laughed to myself out loud many times reading your posts...you are so funny, yet intelligent, too! I don't add my 2 cents very often...but, do enjoy reading and getting to know all these different personalities and the views of each one. This is a enjoyable experience.
Can you explain a little further for me the whole..."Rick K in DRAG"...how funny???? Reading some of these forums is "kind of" like reading a book you just can't put down and you try to place a face with each personality. (and yes...i picture you very handsome!)
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1272) 11 years ago
And now, for the shocking news to someone who is not "in the know"....Gunnar? Will you open the envelope?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
It is truly amazing how much damage can be caused by a rogue "Y" chromosome.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Down's Syndrome?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
Perhaps "rogue" wasn't the right word. Given the disparate outcomes, I think we can eliminate "nurture" from the equation, leaving only "nature" to explain the male pattern baldness and teatardia.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
Awww, thanks Mom, er, I mean luvlife. But I thought we'd agreed not to tell Ricky I was your favorite.

Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
I can only surmise that Denise used to administer the beatings.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 11 years ago
How was she supposed to know that he'd actually enjoy the taste of Elmer's Paste?
Top