Democrats & Liberals Archives

Where my party is just as wrong as the GOP

In their debate, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden agreed on one thing - that they both don’t want gay marriage. This experiment in democracy that we live in should always be on the cutting edge of defining what freedom and liberty are instead of lagging behind. On this issue we are woefully behind.

Joe Biden said, "Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it." Palin added, "I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage." She went further to break with John McCain in supporting a anti-gay marriage amendment, "I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that's where we would go. I don't support gay marriage."

While I would say that the Democrats are ahead of the curve with respect to granting same-sex couples the same rights and privileges that opposite sex married couples have, I still think that it does not go far enough. I do understand why they do this because the last thing they need is a bunch of gay-bashers whipping up the Christian conservatives when we have a vital election in a month but still it falls short of what I think is right.

The first line of the Loving v. Virginia case states: "Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment." While I think everyone will agree that my state's prohibition on mixed race marriages is abhorrent and that the case wasn't decided until 1967 (when I was 1 year old) was a hundred years too late, there seems to be a lot of resistance to making this right to be married open to everyone. While I agree that marriage is essentially a state issue and we have all seen these laws that have been floated allowing states not to honor marriages from other states, in this landmark case, the judges rules that, "the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment." I see this civil union thing as a "separate but equal" attempt that has also been shot down by the SCOTUS (Brown v. Board of Education).

I have heard all the arguments about it leading to bigamy and in the case of some extremists, to bestiality. These don't hold up because marriage is essentially a 50-50 business partnership between two people and three or more people cannot be in a 50-50 partnership it creates an issue of dividing property upon dissolution of this partnership. Some argue that marriage is for raising children, while I agree that children are better off with two parents, thankfully my children have a mom and dad at home, but there is no requirement in marriage that says you have to a have children to be married or be married to have children. There are plenty of same-sex couples with children - do those of you who believe that this is the issue agree that if a same-sex couple has children they should be allowed to get married? Heck, you don't have to be in love with the other person to marry them or even like them for that matter. Do we want to criminalize marrying for money? It seems that the only thing you have to have to be married in this country is opposing gender. Can someone make an argument why we should not allow same-sex couples to be married in the eyes of the state that doesn't involve something in the bible? Church's, I think don't have to honor same sex marriages if they want to be bigots but that state is bound by law to treat everyone equally and to not discriminate against anyone based on a classification.

It's time for our country to grow up and act like adults in this area and give everyone the right to marry any person they choose.

Posted by T.C. Sned at October 20, 2008 7:36 PM
Comments
Comment #267616

If the “marriage is for children” argument made sense, then what do we say to my wife’s grandfather? When he was in his 70s (and about 15 years after his first wife died), he got remarried. His second wife was also in her 70s, so obviously the two of them were not going to be procreating.

If gay marriage should be prohibited because it can’t produce children, should this marriage have been forbidden?

If I have a vasectomy and my wife dies, should I be forbidden from re-marrying?

The answer to both of these is “of course not”, but you often hear the general argument made all the same. It’s ludicrous.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 20, 2008 7:46 PM
Comment #267618

LawnBoy - exactly - they offer up all of these excuses when the actual reason can be summed up with one word - homophobia.

Posted by: tcsned at October 20, 2008 7:55 PM
Comment #267623

It all boils down to the fact that a MAJORITY of the people support traditional marriage, but it should be a state issue not a national issue.

Posted by: KAP at October 20, 2008 9:43 PM
Comment #267624

KAP,

Fortunately, constitutional rights are not generally up to a majority vote.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 20, 2008 9:47 PM
Comment #267625

They are when you are voting on constitutional admendments.

Posted by: KAP at October 20, 2008 9:59 PM
Comment #267626

>It all boils down to the fact that a MAJORITY of the people support traditional marriage, but it should be a state issue not a national issue.
Posted by: KAP at October 20, 2008 09:43 PM

KAP,

Again we beg the question of crossing state borders. My son marries his partner in Massachusetts. His boss offers him a promotion if he takes a position with the company in Oregon. He now has to choose between a career and a divorce. He can divorce and take his partner to Oregon…then he lives a lie, and without the benefits that his marriage gives him in Massachusetts.

Why should my son have to make that decision when my other son, who is married the conventional way does not?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2008 10:02 PM
Comment #267627

It’s been a long time since I’ve voted on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 20, 2008 10:05 PM
Comment #267628

TC Sned,

Good post with a timely message. We Dems may be derelict in this matter…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2008 10:06 PM
Comment #267629

>It’s been a long time since I’ve voted on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 20, 2008 10:05 PM

Lawnboy,

Yeah, let’s keep Palin out of office so we don’t have to contend with a Constitutional Amendment on who should be allowed to marry…hmmm, it sure sounds like a stupid reason for such an amendment…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2008 10:08 PM
Comment #267631

Co-habitation is in all the states. Dude sorry about your son but what’s legal in one state may not be in another and I applaud both candidates on their stand for traditional marriage. Lawnboy I was talking STATE CONSTITUIONS. The U.S Constitution starts out with WE THE PEOPLE,which IMO means MAJORITY.

Posted by: KAP at October 20, 2008 10:18 PM
Comment #267634

KAP,

Actually, I was the first to mention the constitution between us, so I’m sorry you misunderstood me.

what’s legal in one state may not be in another

For most law, yes. For marriage law, though, precedent has been that marriages enacted in one state are respected in all states. Only in cases like racism and homophobia has that not been followed.

The U.S Constitution starts out with WE THE PEOPLE,which IMO means MAJORITY.

And that’s the difference between the preamble and the actual articles.

Are you saying that you would give up your gun if a majority of the electorate told you to? Or that you would accept your place of worship being closed if the majority of the electorate didn’t like your religion?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 20, 2008 10:27 PM
Comment #267636

What we are talking about here is what a minority group wants not about guns or religion. It is now up to each individual state to allow or not to allow gay marriage. The writers of the U.S Constitution if they thought in their wildest dreams that this question was ever going to come up probably would have put in the Constitution at that time that a marriage was only between a man and a woman.

Posted by: KAP at October 20, 2008 10:41 PM
Comment #267639
What we are talking about here is what a minority group wants not about guns or religion

But you’re making a philosophical argument that the constitution should be subject to majority approval. If you really think that, then you should be able to defend it in cases where you are in the minority (even hypothetically).

If you can’t support the argument when it isn’t in your favor, then you don’t really care about the argument; you’re just failing around opportunistically instead of making a coherent argument.

The writers of the U.S Constitution if they thought in their wildest dreams that this question was ever going to come up probably would have put in the Constitution at that time that a marriage was only between a man and a woman.

Thanks for your speculation. Unfortunately, I need something more concrete than that.

Fortunately, though, the amenders of the Constitution said that we can’t treat different groups differently. That’s pretty good for me.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 20, 2008 10:53 PM
Comment #267642

Here is my take on it — lets just even the field — marriage will just be a church thing — no tax breaks — no legal breaks - no divorce courts, nothing —Nada
Equality under the law, I mean — why should gays and single people be supporting the married folks and their errors in judgment though their tax`s? — Really the more I think on this — the more I can see where the true right from before the thumpers came in should like the idea.
Hows that sound folks?
Savage

Posted by: A Savage at October 20, 2008 11:12 PM
Comment #267644

Hmmm…no state sponsored marriage? Anyone can live together without sanction? Marriages in a church only means something to that particular church? Another church doesn’t have to recognize a marriage in any other church? If a couple gets married in a church and then want to dissolve their marriage, all they have to do is change membership?

I wonder how many more benefits we can think of for such a marriage policy…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2008 11:30 PM
Comment #267645

>Dude sorry about your son but what’s legal in one state may not be in another and I applaud both candidates on their stand for traditional marriage.
Posted by: KAP at October 20, 2008 10:18 PM

Kap,

Are you sorry that my son has to make a decision based on stupid laws, or that he is gay?

If you are sorry about the differences in state laws, I am not concerned, it won’t be that long before all states face this issue and will then have to come to some agreement on it. Because we are all citizens of one nation, I doubt differing marriage laws will prevail.

If you are sorry for me because my son is gay…you are a disgrace to the human race.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2008 11:37 PM
Comment #267650

The Consitution talks about equal protection under the law but doesn’t say that we “can’t treat different groups differently.”

Equal protection doesn’t mean that everybody gets to live under whatever rules they want. If that were the true, gay marriage would be protected under the Consitution, yes. But so would polygamy, marrying minors, and a bunch of stuff that society at large doesn’t agree with.

Posted by: Liam at October 21, 2008 12:07 AM
Comment #267654

I like savage’s idea.

Posted by: Calvin at October 21, 2008 1:04 AM
Comment #267657

Hmmmm, seems the socialists are on the other foot on this issue.

Whatever happened to all those less government interference Republicans? I guess they must be in the Log Cabin.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 21, 2008 1:21 AM
Comment #267659

I believe it should be up to the states to make the decision on gay marriage. However I do support it as it passed in my state of California and voted against a measure(Prop 8)that would overturn that decision.

Posted by: Sean at October 21, 2008 1:51 AM
Comment #267660

Goodlumpugas

As far as myself, I cannot speak for an entire party, but my own personal beliefs.. it is not for the federal goverment to get involved into, as has been mentioned by others it if a matter for each state to have their own laws and rules on. The fedreal goverment has enough things to screw up they do not need more power, the Nanny Feds are not the answer to all our problems.

Posted by: Rhancheck at October 21, 2008 2:14 AM
Comment #267662

Yes, Obama and Biden are absolutely wrong on this issue. And I think they probably know they are, too.

In fact, I believe every American understands that it’s totally wrong to deny our gay fellow citizens the legal right to get married to their loved ones.
And how do we know this? Well, it’s very simple.
Because of the founding principle that built this nation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Btw, that truth is self-evident for women, also.

Furthermore, the Preamble to our Constitution backs that up:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How can America form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity… if ALL Men and Women are not equal among We the People and in the eyes of our representative government?

Answer: We can’t. Not until ALL Americans are treated as equally as our founding document proclaimed we should be.

The problem is, We the People are are still a work in progress — and that makes us a nation still struggling to find the wisdom, compassion and empathy that is necessary for us to finally and completely fulfill that 232 year old founding principle of ours.

We Progressives simply have to keep dragging our fellow Americans along into the future where that truth will become so self-evident that we will, at long last, finally see it fulfilled.
Still, it’s important to remember what the First Amendment informed us as well. We live in a nation where there is a separation between Church and State — and thank goodness for it. Thus, no religious institution should ever be forced to acknowledge gay marriages. Unless of course this is something they and their congregations agree to accept and perform willingly.
So, what we’re basically talking about here should only pertain to our federal government needing to legally recognize our marriages, regardless of whether we’re straight or gay.

goog:

Whatever happened to all those less government interference Republicans? I guess they must be in the Log Cabin.

Well, if it’s Republican politicians you’re searching for, you might want to check a few of the airport bathrooms. Seems they’re really into that whole anonymous, furtive, public thing. ;^)

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at October 21, 2008 2:38 AM
Comment #267664

Heres a plan. Lets make all legal marriages civil unions. The state has no business “sanctfying” anything anyway. We can leave that up to the churches.If they want to marry gays so be it. Not the states business.That way everyone has equal protection under the law and it gets around religious arguments that do not belong in secular politics and are actually just an excuse for bigotry.

Posted by: bills at October 21, 2008 3:24 AM
Comment #267667

I agree with liam, if we allow gay marriage why not let the mormon faith practice poligamy as an example. As some in congress have decided, it’s up to the states to decide.

Posted by: KAP at October 21, 2008 6:16 AM
Comment #267669

Ahhhh the old “it’s a State’s Rights Issue” BS line

Remember when THAT arguement was used in support of denying Blacks basic constitutional rights??

It’s OK for the South to discriminate because it is “STATES RIGHTS” — it was BS then and it is BS now
The STATES do NOT have a right to deny an AMERICAN CITIZEN a basic constitutional right.

Religious definitions of “marriage” have no place in the legal/civil definitions of partnership relationships.
LEGAL/CIVIL protections of INDIVIDUAL or COUPLES rights should not be based on the person(s) color, gender, race, religion, sexual preference, whatever — they are AMERICAN CITIZENS and NO STATE should be allowed to treat AMERICAN CITIZENS in a manner associated with tyrannical 3rd world countries.
Why does anyone care? Who cares what SOMEONE else chooses to do, if it has no direct harm to anyone else?
We are not talking about pedophilia, rape, incest, or other such “personal choices” that DO HARM TO ANOTHER CITIZEN and therefore SHOULD come under the rule of the STATE (capital S).
Why does what someone else does in the PRIVACY of their home with another consenting adult become the business of other citizens and/or the government??
GET OVER IT.

Next will be — Why did you marry HIM (HER) they are not good looking — you are fat, they are thin, you are not a “proper match”
Inter-racial marriage
Inter-faith marriage
Those have been (and to some degree still are) looked down on by people.

AGHHHHHHH
Why do people spend so much time worrying about and being judgemental about choices and actions of others that have no direct bearing on their own lives??
WHO CARES????
LEAVE THEM ALONE, THEY ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO YOU AND IT SAYS MORE ABOUT YOU THAT YOU OBSESS ABOUT IT!!!!!!!
GET OVER IT AND GROW UP!!!

Posted by: Russ at October 21, 2008 6:50 AM
Comment #267670

And NO this is NOT about a NANNY STATE in PROTECTING GAY MARRIAGE
It WOULD be a NANNY state if there were an AMENDMENT to BAN GAY MARRIAGE
the US Gov’t would be directly involved with PERSONAL DECISIONS that do no harm to anyone else.
(and as someone pointed out, this is quite ironic as its most ardent supporters are those that are the loudest to complain about Gov’t interference in our daily lives and a “nanny state”!!!)
WHAT HIPOCRISY!!!

Posted by: Russ at October 21, 2008 7:03 AM
Comment #267671

>Heres a plan. Lets make all legal marriages civil unions.
Posted by: bills at October 21, 2008 03:24 AM

bills,

You’ve got the best alternative. After all, this is just a game of semantics. Republicans and Christians don’t like the word ‘marriage’ attached to gays…okay, we can leave that word to the Christian church, and adopt the word ‘union’ to every civil bonding ceremony, no matter the sexes involved…that works.

That thing about ‘then we’d have to let people marry animals, and return to polygamy, etc., is only a fly in the ointment of those who live their lives in constant fear. Laws, with the exceptions of seat-belt laws, etc., are put in place to protect the rest of us from some of us. Most laws stick to that tenant. I think it can be shone that gay civil unions hurt no one. We can leave it up to legal beagles to show whether polygamy, bestiality, marriage to close family members etc., are harmful to society or not.

In case you haven’t figured it out by now, I think seat-belt laws border on trashing the Constitution. My problem is I’m too much of a coward to challenge it in court. I drive with seat-belts because I think you’d be stupid not to. But since there has never been a recorded instance wherein one person driving without a seat-belt cause the death of someone else, I don’t know how such a law passed the Constitutional test…if ever one of you gets a ticket for not wearing a seat-belt, would you please ask your local ACLU to sue in federal court?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 21, 2008 7:08 AM
Comment #267672

Ugh! shone for shown…please forgive me…I just liked the looks of shone better…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 21, 2008 7:12 AM
Comment #267673

KAP,

By the way, I was using a hypothetical when discussing my gay son. None of my sons are gay. I kind of wish one were, because it would make my argument more authentic…but, here’s the kicker…I have six sons, and five daughters. Studies have shown that families with more than one son have far greater chances that one will be gay than families with only one son. Studies also show that the more sons in a family, the greater the chances at least one will be gay. If you guys are so adamant about no gay marriages, would you then pass a law that says there can be no more than one son per family? If you would not, are you not then defying nature with your concerns about gay marriages?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 21, 2008 7:23 AM
Comment #267675

The state’s rights issue has already been decided by the SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia when they said that the states ARE bound by the 14th amendment, “the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Is there any argument against gay marriage that is better than “mob rules?” That’s pretty weak - so if we decide to have a majority vote to make an anti-interracial marriage amendment that it would be ok? Or any other stupid idea that the American people want to stuff into our Constitution?

Up to now, the Bill of Rights and the amendments are about expanding our rights into areas where the have been stifled - except prohibition which didn’t turn out so well. Polygamy, child marriage, and bestiality are all red herrings. As I said in my post, the state’s interest in a marriage is about the assets and property generated as a result of the marriage. When marriages dissolve the state decides how property is divided. With multiple partners in a marriage how does one split up property? There is really no fair way to split it that is why, to the state, marriage is simple a 50/50 business partnership. It is also a legal contract and neither minors nor animals can sign a legal contract.

What is so scary about letting gay couples get married?

Life is short, too short. We also only get one shot at it and one shot to find happiness within the confines of this short life. Why do people feel the need to dictate to others how they want to live their lives when it has absolutely no impact on anyone else’s ability to be happy? Offending you sensibilities doesn’t cut it sorry. Look the other way if it bothers you. Move to a country that condones the persecution of homosexuals if you really think that oppressing someone is ok.

We let straight people wield the institution of marriage like a 3 year old with a squirt gun but a happy, committed gay couple has to live in the shadows. Pretty sorry.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 7:51 AM
Comment #267676

I’m still waiting to hear from someone why my wife’s widowed grandfather should not have been allowed to marry a post-menopausal widow. Or why I shouldn’t be allowed to remarry after a vasectomy if my wife dies.

If you can’t answer those questions, then you don’t have any reason to oppose legal gay marriage more compelling than “I don’t like it”. And that’s not enough to justify a law that infringes on the rights of others.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 21, 2008 8:20 AM
Comment #267677

LawnBoy - that’s because their reason for wanting to put an amendment in our Constitution that limits a right not expands it is because they don’t like it or their preacher told them not to like it. If this isn’t the reason then please enlighten us.

The anti-gay marriage amendment idea is very un-conservative in a Barry Goldwater conservative way. He was for allowing gays to serve in the military and treating them the same as everyone else. The Constitution demands it and Barry Goldwater believed in the Constitution.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 8:45 AM
Comment #267678
Where my party is just as wrong as the GOP

What about illegal immigration?

Most incumbent politicians in BOTH parties despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes , profits , and (supposedly, but severely misplaced, or false) compassion.

Here are the many ways most incumbent politicians despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other:

  • (01) 70% of women giving birth at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas,TX in only the first 3 months of year 2006 were illegal aliens; anchor babies then allow the mother to get a blue passport and welfare; www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp

  • (02) hundreds of hospitals overrun by illegal aliens are closing in border states; www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/178/8693

  • (03) same thing for hospitals in Florida; www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI

  • (04) more Americans have been murdered by illegal aliens in the last 3 years than U.S. Troops killed in Iraq in the last 5 years;

  • (05) Americans are burdened with net losses of an estimated $70-to-$327 Billion for burdened hospitals, schools, healthcare, welfare, Medicaid, Medi-CAL, law enforcement, prisons, insurance, border patrol, millions of displaced jobs, disease, and an estimated 3% of illegal aliens voting in our elections (half of the states do not require voter IDentification);

  • (06) American police officers murdered by illegal aliens: One-Simple-Idea.com/PoliceVictimsOfIllegalAliens1.htm

  • (07) In GAO Report 5646, for a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens (imprisoned for many different crimes), there were 5992 homicides over a period of 57 years in CA, TX, and AZ (between 1947 and 2004). That is an average homicide rate of 105.12 homicides per year (i.e. 5992 homicides/57 years). The study group is only 8.67% of the total of number of illegal aliens in prison. 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens, and they aren’t incarcerated for merely tresspassing our border once, because that’s only a misdemeanor.

  • (08) Obama has a grade of “D-” by: grades.betterimmigration.com/compare.php3?District=IL&Category=0&Status=Career&VIPID=1162

  • (09) McCain has a grade of “D” by: grades.betterimmigration.com/compare.php3?District=AZ&Category=0&Status=Career&VIPID=33

  • (10) McCain also voted for the 1st shamnesty of 1986.

  • (11) Obama wants to give drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens. BOTH Obama and McCain want to pass another shamnesty BILL.

Illegal aliens merely looking for a job are not the true villains here.
The truly despicable villains are most incumbent politicians that despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes , profits , and (supposedly, but severely misplaced, or false) compassion.
The illegal immigration issue has died away, because BOTH John McCain and Barack Obama choose to despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against either other for votes , profits , and (supposedly) more compassion for illegal aliens than Americans (based not only on their positions, but their voting records too).

It’s no wonder that neither McCain or Obama want to talk about illegal immigration.

After all, McCain voted for the 1st shamnesty of 1986, which more than quadrupled the problem, and Obama’s position on illegal immigration is very clear.
On 6-APR-2008, Obama clearly mischaracterized people (in a lot of small towns in the midwest, who are sick of illegal immigration) as merely being “anti-immigrant” when Obama said:

  • “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.
… which doesn’t make sense, for a nation that is one of the biggest melting pots in the world. Did it ever occur to Obama that people are sick of illegal immigration (not merely “anti-immigrant”)? There’s a big difference. And did it occur to Obama that people are sick of unfair trade (not merely “anti-trade”)?

Oh well. Partisan loyalties are all that seem to matter.
Trying to determine which party has the most corrupt, incompetent, irresponsible, and FOR-SALE incumbent politicins is like trying to determine which pile of crap smells worse.
Yet, many partisan loyalists will try.
It appears that blind partisan loyalty must affect the voters’ sense of smell, because the partisan loyalists swear that THEIR party’s crap smells better.
But you can’t tell that to the blindly partisan.
They are going to pull that party lever for THEIR party, come hell or high water.

That’s largely the reason neither candidate has much of a lead.
Each side has their hard-core partisan voters, but the independent voters are not convinced by either side.
The election will be decided by the largest group of voters, which are independents (which has been growing for obvious reasons).
As things continue to deteriorate, the number of independents will continue to grow larger.
Perhaps someday, the voters will repeate what most unhappy voters did in year 1933, when they finally ousted a whopping 206 members of Congress (One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm#GreatDepression). Unfortunately, it was already more than 3 years into the Great Depression which lasted many more years.

More Americans have been murdered in the last 3 year than all U.S. Troops have been killed in Iraq in the last 5 years, and gay marraige is the major topic of “Where my party is just as wrong as the GOP”?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 21, 2008 9:08 AM
Comment #267679

BTW, I’m not opposed to gay marriage, and don’t think it’s any of the government’s business, and think Bush and similar ilk are idiots for trying to pass an amendment against it.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 21, 2008 9:13 AM
Comment #267682

” Everyone is attacking this issue from the wrong end. I think the only rational thing to do is take “marriage” out of the civil code all together.

Merely have everyone apply for a domestic partners document to satisfy all legal necessities for all persons. If the word marriage is the problem then allow it to be used by the religious institutions that claim it as their purview. Have them register such marriages as a domestic partners document to give it legal form where necessary.

Problem solved.

Posted by: NapaJohn at October 21, 2008 9:34 AM
Comment #267683

If this kind of hate legislation ever actually sees the light of day I don’t see atheists being able to marry much longer either. Since marriage is a “contract between two people and God” according to most religious people, not me. Then the religious right will seek even more sequestering of the gay population. All this hate has to end.
How can these people call themselves Americans and seek to deny basic rights to honest tax paying citizens?

This disgusts me, I am ashamed to even admit that I was once a Christian.

Posted by: NapaJohn at October 21, 2008 9:51 AM
Comment #267686

I think Biden and Obama know that forcing religious institutions to perform gay marriage ceremonies is wrong and they are trying to play the middle so as not to give either side an excuse to vote against them.

Fun to watch Dems complain about how wrong majority rule is though.

Posted by: kctim at October 21, 2008 10:09 AM
Comment #267690

I disagree with renaming all “civil marriages” “civil unions.” It is a semantic argument and if that’s all these gay marriage haters are hung up on semantics then they need to get over themselves. This country isn’t just theirs it’s all of ours and one group doesn’t get to persecute another group just because they belong to another group.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 10:24 AM
Comment #267691

“How can these people call themselves Americans and seek to deny basic rights to honest tax paying citizens?”

Who knows Napa. Heck, the next thing you know they will be going after our 2nd Amendment right and forcing us to lower our own standard of living in order to raise anothers. And if we’re not real careful, they will be forcing us to use the retirement and healthcare plans they think is best for us.

Dang religious nuts, forcing their beliefs onto others and all.

Posted by: kctim at October 21, 2008 10:29 AM
Comment #267692

kctim - who said anything about forcing churches to do anything. If a church wants to discriminate that’s their option. Just as any church has no right to dictate to everyone, we cannot dictate what a church believes. The state doesn’t have that option, they have to treat everyone equally. A church can excommunicate anyone it chooses based on its beliefs we can’t excommunicate our citizens based on their sexual preference nor should we be able to deny someone their rights based on such a qualification.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 10:32 AM
Comment #267697

kctim - You are conflating arguments. Gay marriage has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, though we shouldn’t deny people this right either, but that’s not what this thread is about. This thread is about the right of any citizen to marry the person that they choose to marry.

I still haven’t heard a single compelling argument as to why the state should deny a citizen the right to marry the person they choose. I have been very critical of my party for falling short of what I see as right though no one in the Democratic Party seems to support an amendment to the Constitution as many in the GOP including the VP candidate supports. In the absence of a reason I am left to believe that they are just using homophobia to whip up fear and get people out to the polls to support their candidates which is a pretty lame thing to do.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 10:46 AM
Comment #267699

Tom
From my experience, people either think homosexuality is “gross” or that it is a sin. Only time can take care of the first, but a distinct separation of the second may help lessen the resistance to gay marriage. Maybe some kind of guarantee clause like “no church will be forced to accept, acknowledge or perform gay marriages” or something.
I just know we have to understand and respect all views on this or it will continue to be exploited for political gain.

I am not conflating arguments at all. It is not govts job to permit me to exercise my 2nd Amendment right, who I must aid, how I must aid or who I am allowed to love and marry.

Everybody wants to use govt to force their beliefs onto everybody else, but they pitch a fit when somebody else tries to do the same thing with something they believe in.

Posted by: kctim at October 21, 2008 11:17 AM
Comment #267702
forcing religious institutions to perform gay marriage ceremonies is wrong

I’m not sure if this is more a red herring or a straw man.

Heck, it’s both.

There’s no way that such a law would force religious institutions to perform ceremonies they don’t want to perform. Religious institutions already get to choose not to perform marriages if they don’t want to. For example, I’m not Catholic, so a Catholic church is well within its rights not to agree to perform a marriage ceremony for me. And I’m not Jewish, but I’d never get the law to support me in making a synagogue let me get married there.

It may be that the congregation of an institution would put pressure on it to change, but there’s no way that the law would be doing it.

I’m sorry that you have to rely on such uninformed fearmongering to support denying marriage rights to fellow Americans.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 21, 2008 11:25 AM
Comment #267711

kctim - I agree with you on the church issue - it isn’t the government’s business to dictate what a church can and cannot do. That is one of the reasons for a sharp separation of church and state. That is also why church and religion should stay out of politics. If they want to get in government’s business they should not be surprised if the government returns the favor. As the late, great, George Carlin wisely said, “If churches want to play the game of politics, let them pay admission like everyone else.”

As to the gross comment - I say too bad for those people. No person should have wait for people to not think their lifestyle is gross or unpleasant to them have rights. Was it ok for Virginia to wait until 1967 to say that interracial marriage was ok because some people thought it was gross? No one should have to wait until someone else is ready to accept them before they have the same rights as everyone else.

Here is where the argument get backwards. It isn’t the government forcing anything on those that don’t like gay marriage. It would be allowing a group of people who have been denied their rights to have the same rights as everyone else. Your argument about the 2nd Amendment (which I agree with you on that point) would translate to forcing people to marry someone of the same gender. I think the proper analogy is that I have the right to own a gun but you do not have this right because you belong to the NRA (I am not saying that you personally are a member of the NRA, it’s just an example). Since I might find the NRA gross (which I don’t) I can dictate that you do not have the same right as others because of belonging to a group.

kctim - I don’t want you to think I am picking on you. So far, you have been the only one brave enough to even engage in this discussion from the other perspective. My purpose in starting this discussion was not only to show my own party’s shortcomings on this issue but to try to figure out the logic behind denying gay couples the right to be married. It has always baffled me from a logical perspective.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 11:49 AM
Comment #267712

LB
I believe in and support absolute marriage rights for all.

You can call it whatever you want, but the fact is that people fear their church being required (forced) to honor gay-marriage if it is “legalized.”
I believe a good first step would be to convince them that they will not be harrassed or sued for holding the views they do.
It may not work, but we have to get past all this name calling and division.

Posted by: kctim at October 21, 2008 11:52 AM
Comment #267713
I believe a good first step would be to convince them that they will not be harrassed or sued for holding the views they do.

Great, then stop repeating ideas that have no basis in reality. If you think those ideas are wrong, say that they are wrong instead of parroting them.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 21, 2008 12:03 PM
Comment #267715

“Studies have shown that families with more than one son have far greater chances that one will be gay than families with only one son.”

this is simple math. you could also say that someone with more than one dog has higher chance of one of them biting someone.

Posted by: dbs at October 21, 2008 12:09 PM
Comment #267717

marysdude - 11 kids! Wow! you are a braver man than I. 2 kids are more than enough for me.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 12:19 PM
Comment #267721

Tom
I do not hold the other perspective on this issue, sorry. I am a very big supporter of marriage for anyone willing to commit to such an idea. But namecalling and casting blame will not change anybodys mind and I believe respecting ones religious belief on this is just as important as respecting ones feelings of love.

The gross comment was not meant to be a personal one, but is one which anybody can see. Its “gross,” “unnatural” or “its a sin,” are the main reasons you get when asking most people why they oppose it. Of course it should hold no sway over the matter, but it is a natural human response. Guy/guy gets the blechs and girl/girl gets the oooo’s, thats how it is and other than time, there isn’t much we can do about it.

I only bring up other individual rights issues because I believe picking and choosing which individual rights govt can dictate, leads to what we have now. That is why I am so opposed to majority rule such as we as a country have morphed into.

LB
So we should just ignore opposing ideas and keep pushing until people finally relent?
Fine. Everybody who thinks their church will be required to honor gay marriage is wrong, so shut up and take my word that it won’t happen. Your beliefs are stupid and we will do this whether you like it or not, so just accept it.
Think that changed alot of minds LB? Talk about having no basis in reality.

Posted by: kctim at October 21, 2008 12:42 PM
Comment #267725
So we should just ignore opposing ideas and keep pushing until people finally relent?

Once again, you create a straw man of my argument. I’m right here. You can debate me instead of what you wish I said.

so shut up and take my word that it won’t happen

That’s not what I said. I gave examples showing that under current law churches are allowed to choose not to host weddings of which they don’t approve.

I didn’t call anyone or their beliefs stupid. I didn’t tell anyone to shut up. Those are your words that you project on me.

I do think that trying to explain the legal basis of the issue is more successful than just re-stating an invalid claim without addressing its weaknesses.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 21, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #267726

note: by “I’m right here”, I meant that I am myself in the debate, not asserting that I am correct.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 21, 2008 12:57 PM
Comment #267728

T.C. Sned,

You see marriage as a right. The government doesn’t. Gays are the only ones they happen to be discriminating against at the moment, but the government can legally keep anyone they want from getting married. It’s called “marriage licensing” and I think the concept should be outlawed on a national level.

In fact, since “marriage” itself is a religious concept, government should not be involved in it at all. There should be no special perks of penalties for married people. Judges shouldn’t be allowed to marry people either. Couples can always enter into similar contractual agreements. And while we’re at it, let’s get rid of the form of usury we call alimony.

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 21, 2008 1:09 PM
Comment #267729

LB
People think those things and are called stupid and told to shut up for voicing such concerns. It is my personal belief that we must understand their concerns and not trivialize them if the right thing is to get done.
You tell them their ideas have no basis in reality and tell them they are wrong, and I will try to understand where their ideas come from and why they hold them.
Whatever works man, I don’t care.

Posted by: kctim at October 21, 2008 1:12 PM
Comment #267730
since “marriage” itself is a religious concept,

Yes and no. There is a religious concept of marriage, but religion is not the only source of the concept.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 21, 2008 1:12 PM
Comment #267732

kctim,

So, it doesn’t matter that I try to explain the law and try to give analogies - because other people who agree with me are rude, then I’m automatically rude, too? So, I can’t argue my position because people on the other side have been insulted by others?

I can tell you don’t care, because you have no interest in actually defending the idea you claim to support or try to explain your position.

I have no problem trying to understand the concerns of others without trivializing them (it’s what I try to do with mixed success). However, you are trying to shut me up for having the temerity of expressing my own opposing view.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 21, 2008 1:17 PM
Comment #267737

kctim - I wasn’t implying that you thought that gay marriage was gross, I was responding to that part of the argument. I totally agree about picking and choosing which rights are protected and which are ignored. If you want your rights respected you must respect the rights of others, both liberals and conservatives need a lesson in this.

I would argue with the natural human response point - it’s a learned human response. As a teenager and young adult I didn’t have the most enlightened view of homosexuality - I didn’t know any openly gay people so all I knew was stereotypes at the time. I had a college roommate “come out” to me and it was a shock at the time and though I continued, and still continue, to be his friend, he was kind of my token gay friend and my thinking hadn’t really changed that much. Through my involvement playing in pit orchestras for college musical theater productions, besides meeting my future wife, I came to know many gay men and that experience taught me that my views were inconsistent with what I knew of these friends and as I try to always do - when the facts don’t jive with my conditioning I try to adjust my view of a subject. Just like with any prejudice, the best way to dispel it is to get personal knowledge of what you fear. Learned responses can be unlearned.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 1:27 PM
Comment #267740

Traveler - the SCOTUS would disagree with you - they ruled in Loving v Virginia that you cannot discriminate against someone based on belonging to a group such as race in this case. While you might be able to argue that marriage is not a right because it can be licensed (I see it as a contract not a license) the government can’t discriminate on who they grant a license to. They also refer to marriage as a right in this decision.

kctim - as to the name calling someone who is against gay marriage a homophobe or a bigot because I haven’t heard an argument against gay marriage that isn’t based on prejudice. I have admitted my own past failings on the matter and would have included myself in the categorization. I believe that bigotry needs to be called out for what it is and those engaging in the practice should be embarrassed.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 1:40 PM
Comment #267741

kctim:

You tell them their ideas have no basis in reality and tell them they are wrong, and I will try to understand where their ideas come from and why they hold them.

Your whole argument — or rather those people you claim you’re representing here — misses the point entirely. This has absolutely nothing to do with the ideas, or the opinions, or what some percentage of our people happen to think is “right” or “wrong” or “sinful” or “gross.”

From the beginning in America ‘All’ were proclaimed to be ‘created equal’ and therefore have ‘unalienable Rights’ which encompass the idea of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’
Not for some, but for ALL.

Everybody who thinks their church will be required to honor gay marriage is wrong, so shut up and take my word that it won’t happen.

Anyone who would think that is either stupid or ignorant. Because the First Amendment protects religion from government, and government from religion, and no one is suggesting that we do away with the separation of church and state and force religious institutions to recognize or do anything that goes against their will.

Your beliefs are stupid and we will do this whether you like it or not, so just accept it.

This isn’t about “beliefs” or complete “acceptance”, and it never will be.
It’s about RIGHTS and whether or not we will allow them apply to ALL.

This is a test of whether or not Americans actually do believe that ‘All’ are truly ‘Equal’ — despite whatever our personal ideas, or opinions or preferences happen to be.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at October 21, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment #267743

Traveler - the SCOTUS would disagree with you - they ruled in Loving v Virginia that you cannot discriminate against someone based on belonging to a group such as race in this case. While you might be able to argue that marriage is not a right because it can be licensed (I see it as a contract not a license) the government can’t discriminate on who they grant a license to. They also refer to marriage as a right in this decision.

But they are discriminating. That’s why you had to write this article in the first place. The SC may have seen marriage as a right when they made the decision, but the people denying licenses to homosexuals don’t see it as a right. That’s why I say the concept of government licensing (and sanctioning) of marriages should be outlawed.

Posted by: TheTraveler at October 21, 2008 1:52 PM
Comment #267747

Tom
I don’t believe one has to be prejudice to not support gay marriage because they see the act as “gross.”
Your point of it being a learned response makes sense, especially if we are waiting for time to have a positive affect.
Interesting point, I will definetly think on that.

LB
You can argue your position however you want, that is what I don’t care about. The idea I support is that I don’t think we get anywhere by telling people their beliefs are nothing but “uninformed fearmongering,” and that we should work to correct such beliefs in an understanding and respectful way.

I’m not trying to “shut you up,” we are on the same side. I just think a different approach may work better in my opinion. Thats all. I wasn’t trying to rile anybody up.

Posted by: kctim at October 21, 2008 2:03 PM
Comment #267748

TheTraveler - Agreed about the reason I felt it necessary to write this post.

The problem with outlawing the government issuing marriage licenses is that it is a legal partnership between two people. In fact, I would argue it is the only interest the government should have in marriage. The reason I don’t think government licenses should stop is that if the marriage dissolves it helps to provide a way to split property. It demonstrates a conscious decision to create a partnership and a conscious decision to end a partnership. Not very romantic, but government shouldn’t be romantic it should be based on the rule of law and property rights. The other arguments for changing the name to civil unions for everyone is just a semantic argument and not based on substance or fact. Another area government should stay out of.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 2:10 PM
Comment #267750

“In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had — the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.”

Excerpt from; http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/10/21/opposition_to_california_proposition_8_hate_in_the_name_of_love


“Courts are not sought by people who simply want you to tolerate an idea. Courts order people to do things. From just this small sample of court cases, you can see that tolerance or simple access to certain “benefits” is no longer enough. What is desired is court-ordered moral approval:”

“In New Jersey, the state launched an investigation of a Christian ministry after it declined to host a civil union ceremony for two women on its property. The women could have held their ceremony anywhere—and eventually did hold it somewhere else—but they filed a complaint anyway because they loathed the ministry’s lack of moral approval.”

For more examples of the real agenda behind “gay rights” and other “new rights” read this column;

http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinNimocks/2008/10/20/finally,_straight_talk_from_the_homosexual_agenda


Posted by: Jim M at October 21, 2008 2:17 PM
Comment #267755

VV
I represent nobody but myself and my “whole argument” is about no longer calling people with differing beliefs stupid or ignorant. You obviously don’t agree with me.

You are correct, this is about rights, but because of this majority rules BS we have become, beliefs now have a greater say in what our govt decides to permit, so understanding and respecting those beliefs would be a first step, IMO.

I believe in ALL or rights VV, not some like many do.

Posted by: kctim at October 21, 2008 2:35 PM
Comment #267765

BillS has it.

Make all unions “civil unions” when recognized by the state, and churches can sanctify “marriages”. Won’t ever happen though.

Posted by: Max at October 21, 2008 3:00 PM
Comment #267768

Jim M - Well the California Supreme Court was right. Just because a majority of the people want something it doesn’t mean it should be so. I ask you, if 61% of Californians opposed mixed race marriage, even if a majority of black residents voted for it should it be law? I don’t think it is court ordered moral approval - it is court ordered equality for someone who hasn’t been treated as equal. As to the traditional definition, from my reading through SCOTUS cases on marriage or any other legal document they never mention “a man and a woman” they mention two people but not their genders. I agree that the “traditional view” of marriage is what you describe. A lot of other things we now view as abhorrent were considered traditional too.

That New Jersey incident is another thing - without all of the facts I can’t be totally sure but I don’t think it is Constitutional to force a belief system on a religious institution. Though I don’t agree with them, I would side with the church in this case. Though, it may be more complicated than that if the space is a public meeting space for rent for all occasions then discriminating like that crosses the line just as it is not legal to deny someone a set in the cafeteria because they are black. Government should and is required to stay out of church business and visa versa.

Is it that horrible that gay people are seeking moral approval? Being gay is who they are, they don’t choose their lifestyle they only choose to live as the person they are. If there is any example that confirms that it is not a choice is Larry Craig. Is there anything that he would have to gain from choosing to be gay? To be a member of the senate from his party he had to hide who he is, marry a woman, and to publicly despise what he was doing privately. Getting caught has pretty much put an end to his political career. Why would someone choose this?

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 3:17 PM
Comment #267769

>marysdude - 11 kids! Wow! you are a braver man than I. 2 kids are more than enough for me.
Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 12:19 PM

tcsned,

I know what you mean…my youngest turned 35 this year…I would not be able to do it in today’s world, and was just barely able to even back then.

The Democratic party, and our current campaigners in particular, are indeed letting us (Democrats) and America down by denying those principles of the Constitution that would warrant licensing gays to marry, And, are going against the very human rights we all claim we believe in. If it is indeed done for political reasons, then Obama and Biden are as dishonest politically regarding gay marriage as mccain and Palin. If it because of their personal beliefs then I am ashamed of them.

They still get my vote, because they come closer to how I think we should rejoin the world, and in getting out of that dishonorable stupidity in Iraq, but I will let them know of my disappointment in this matter.

Thank you, tcsned for writing this post.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 21, 2008 3:30 PM
Comment #267771

kctim,

The matter of gay marriage is only in the licensing, and has nothing to do with the church. It is illegal, in most states for gays to marry, and as a consequence they cannot get a Marriage License. Churches marry whomever they wish (as long as they have a license)…no one forces them to marry anyone. That part is a no-brainer. In fact I’m pretty sure there are Indian Tribes who don’t require licensing and the ‘state’ can’t demand it. I’m pretty sure those tribes don’t marry gays either…in some ways Indians are just as ignorant as the rest of us…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 21, 2008 3:36 PM
Comment #267774

Marysdude - you are welcome :)

One of my main reasons for writing this was to be critical of my party. I have been very disappointed in Obama/Biden on this issue and I don’t know what’s worse - taking this stand because you believe it or because you believe it is politically expedient to do so. Either way it does not keep with what I see my party’s values as being.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 3:47 PM
Comment #267780

Dude
I did not say govt would force churches to do gay-marriages, but that I have heard that fear expressed by others. I do not agree with that statement, but I do not believe calling them stupid and ignorant is the answer to convince them otherwise.
Apparently, I am of the minority with this kind of thinking.

Good article Tom, I hope it reaches a few people. Thanks.

Posted by: kctim at October 21, 2008 4:05 PM
Comment #267785

kctim:

my “whole argument” is about no longer calling people with differing beliefs stupid or ignorant. You obviously don’t agree with me.

I didn’t call people of differing beliefs stupid or ignorant. I called people who fail to understand that our first amendment already protects peoples beliefs and all religious institutions from interference by our government, stupid or ignorant. Especially when this is so frequently the totally lame and transparently illogical argument they try to use to deny gay Americans the same rights as themselves.

You are correct, this is about rights, but because of this majority rules BS we have become, beliefs now have a greater say in what our govt decides to permit, so understanding and respecting those beliefs would be a first step, IMO.

Wrong. Beliefs should have no say in who our government decides to permit rights to, because in fact, ALL are created equal, and the exact same right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness is INALIENABLE.
As I said, beliefs, ideas, opinions, preferences and prejudices, or demonstrating respect for them don’t pertain to this argument in the least.
This issue is about whether or not every single gay American will one day finally be allowed to be viewed as the equal of straight Americans — and therefore in full possession of that supposedly inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Despite the beliefs of anyone, or the fact that they may or may not approve.

Because respecting opposing viewpoints is NOT the true issue here — and it NEVER will be, no matter how hard some try to insist that this is the case. Securing equal rights for ALL, no matter who or what they are, is actually the crux of this issue.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at October 21, 2008 4:16 PM
Comment #267790

Dude
11 kids wow! I have 1 daughter and 6 stepdaughters of one who is a lesbian. My wife’s childhood friend is a lesbian. In a former marriage my wife and I shared a house with a gay man. My stepdaughter is in a on again off again relationship. The gay man had multipal partners. I know that even in straight families have the same problems. I still feel that it is up to the states to allow or disallow gay unions. IMO though I still am against gay marriages.

Posted by: KAP at October 21, 2008 4:42 PM
Comment #267793

KAP,

No one says you should be FOR gay marriage, only that it should not be illegal. If you actually believe in the Constitution, you have to believe gays should be allowed to wed, no matter your personal feelings toward the act…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 21, 2008 4:55 PM
Comment #267797

KAP - It’s not an easy issue for a lot of people as it challenges very long held traditional views of marriage and morality. It’s going to be an uncomfortable discussion for a lot of people to have but if all we do is tackle the easy things and discuss comfortable topics we, as a country, don’t go anywhere, don’t grow, and don’t keep pushing the concept of what living in the freest society in world history means.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 5:05 PM
Comment #267805

No I do not believe gays should be allowed to wed. This is still the freest society in the world but we have to draw the line somewhere. We cannot always give in to the wims of a minority especially a minority within a minority. You would figure that California would be swamped with gays wanting to get married, but it didn’t happen especially with the no wait no residency restrictions. IMO the majority of gays just want to be recognized as being just as useful to society as anyone else instead of being looked upon as freaks.

Posted by: KAP at October 21, 2008 5:53 PM
Comment #267806

VV
“As I said, beliefs, ideas, opinions, preferences and prejudices, or demonstrating respect for them don’t pertain to this argument in the least”

They do IF you are trying to get their support. Like it or not, beliefs play a huge part in how people vote and if we can get them to quit making this a reason to vote for or against somebody, the better our chances are.
They don’t have to agree with it, just respect it and we won’t get anywhere with them unless we also respect them.

And I understand what you mean when you say this is about rights, not beliefs, all too well. I go through it everyday when it comes to healthcare, SS, welfare etc…

Posted by: kctim at October 21, 2008 5:59 PM
Comment #267816

KAP:

No I do not believe gays should be allowed to wed.

Translation:
The Declaration of Independence was wrong. Once it was King George who trumped the rights of American citzens, but now Religious beliefs trump the rights of American citizens.
Gay people were not created the equals of straight people. Therefore gay people should not possess the unalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

This is still the freest society in the world but we have to draw the line somewhere.

Translation: And that somewhere is at religious beliefs. The line we’ve drawn is that gay people should not have as much freedom as straight people.

We cannot always give in to the wims of a minority especially a minority within a minority.

Translation: Minorities are not equal. Loving someone, marrying someone, and having full legal rights is a whim if someone is gay. Those things are not a whim if one is straight, indeed they are the province of straight people only. Mob rule, dictated by religious belief, must prevail.

You would figure that California would be swamped with gays wanting to get married, but it didn’t happen especially with the no wait no residency restrictions.

Gay folks are waiting to see if our state Constitution will be upheld. Why get married to your partner when the state can come back after the election and tell you that your marriage is no longer valid? Prop 8 will be the first time in our state’s history where our Constitution is going to be altered in order to take away and withhold rights from our citizens, rather than to uphold the rights of our citizens.
In other words, Prop 8 is totally un-American.

IMO the majority of gays just want to be recognized as being just as useful to society as anyone else instead of being looked upon as freaks.

IMO the only people who are freaks in this nation are the control freaks who believe that their religion and their opinions should trump all. That somehow their petty personal prejudices constitute enough of a reason to totally ignore the meaning and purpose of America’s founding principles.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at October 21, 2008 7:48 PM
Comment #267819

VV
What about the rights of 60% of the voters in California when the California Supreme Court nullified their wishes. What about the rights of all those that the 9th circuit court tramples on constantly. What about my rights not to have gay rights jammed down my throat or any other Liberal thinking you can come up with. What about the rights of the majority of people when liberal judges in this country overrule their rights by legislating from the bench. I can go on and on about how the liberal minority tramples my rights.

Posted by: KAP at October 21, 2008 8:40 PM
Comment #267821

I think a lot of gay marriage opponents are only considering their own sensibilities and their religious beliefs and don’t consider the human factor. As I have said before, we only get one very short life on this planet and finding happiness is a difficult thing and to deny someone their chance to have a little happiness and security that can come from marriage is an incredibly unfair thing to do if the only compelling reason is that you don’t like it. If someone has a more compelling reason other than not liking it I would like to hear it but that seems to be the gist of all the arguments I am hearing.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 8:46 PM
Comment #267822

KAP,

What right of yours is being trampled when other people (not you) have or do not have the right to marry other people (not you)?

I’m sure you can go on and on about this, but it doesn’t mean you actually are suffering harm when other people are allowed basic rights.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 21, 2008 8:55 PM
Comment #267824

KAP,

I re-read your post, and I see it now. The “right” that is being “trampled” is the “right” not to have to deal with a reality you don’t want to face.

That’s not a right. That’s a desire to have everything go your way. It’s something I’m trying to teach my two-year-old to mature past.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 21, 2008 9:07 PM
Comment #267825

KAP - Do you think that if 60% of California wanted to ban interracial marriage that the supreme court should step in? Even if they didn’t want civil rights crammed down their throats. If you think that this would be appropriate for this instance for judicial action why is it not alright in the gay marriage instance. That is why we have this judicial check on legislation - to prevent a mob from voting to oppress someone else or another group of people. Should we just get rid of the judicial branch? Not liking something isn’t reason enough to deny someone their rights even if 99.99% of the people don’t like it if that is the only reason. If you really don’t want gay rights jammed down your throat the best way to make that happen is to grant gay people all of the rights and privileges you enjoy. There would then be no need for any further discussion of the issue. Gay people aren’t going away and they aren’t going to stop demanding their rights. Not granting gay people the right to marry is not going to prevent a gay couple from living next door to you, fighting for your freedom in the military, or saving your life in a hospital.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 9:11 PM
Comment #267826

So you guys are saying that a majority of people in over 20 states are insensative to the rights of gays by inacting state constitutional amendments stating a marriage is between a man and a woman and soon more states to follow. t.c.sned I agree life is short. We have co-habitation in all 50 states most people are happy to live that way and that includes gays. My sister has been living with a guy for over 20yrs without marriage. My step daughter also (who is a lesbian} has been living with her partner for over 20yrs and not crying about wanting to be married, they have their ups and downs as any couple. Why cause more heartache knowing that this issue is not going to go anywhere, at least not in what little time I have left on this earth.

Posted by: KAP at October 21, 2008 9:25 PM
Comment #267829

KAP:

I can go on and on about how the liberal minority tramples my rights.

Translation: “Tramples my rights” means: offends my religious sensibilities. Because religious sensibilities should naturally be allowed to trump all in America.

You see, KAP and others like him seem to think that if they can just keep conflating “gay rights” with “trampling their rights” then they can continue to act like it’s somehow alright to deny a certain portion of American citizens freedom and equality in the eyes of our government. Over and over they insist that gay equality would somehow be an infringement upon their own rights — because gay people offend them — and therefore, at least to them, this prejudice constitutes a sensible argument. But it doesn’t.

In fact, there is not a single lick of sense in any argument that supports a denial of rights to any American citizen.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at October 21, 2008 9:34 PM
Comment #267830

Yes KAP, that is exactly what we are saying. The majority has the right to pass laws and they could even pass a constitutional amendment but do you really want your state constitution stained with a limit to a right and not an expansion of a right? It appears that they can pass all the laws they want to and your supreme court will wisely strike them down. I am glad your step daughter is satisfied with not being able to get married. What about all the people who aren’t satisfied with cohabitation? I have a good friend who does really want to marry his partner and cohabitation isn’t good enough for him. There are plenty of straight and gay couples that have no interest in being married and plenty that do. What harm is there in a gay person being married? Are you going to be more offended by seeing a gay couple together with wedding rings on? I still haven’t heard an answer to this from anyone.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 9:38 PM
Comment #267833

VV
I never mentioned religion, and lawnboy the only ones who are crying because they aren’t getting their way is you liberals. I’ve taught my children to respect the wishs of the majority and not cry when you lost the game.

Posted by: KAP at October 21, 2008 9:49 PM
Comment #267834

KAP - and we should all just bow to the majority whims and forget about human and civil rights. Always accept the status quo and never question authority. Let me think about it … nope, not gonna do it. If that were the case Jim Crow would still be in effect and women wouldn’t be able to vote.

Still haven’t answered the question of what harm it does.

Posted by: tcsned at October 21, 2008 9:55 PM
Comment #267836
the only ones who are crying because they aren’t getting their way is you liberals.

Err… you’re the one saying that your “rights” are “trampled” if other people have rights that in no way harm you.

Sorry, you’re projecting.

I’ve taught my children to respect the wishs of the majority and not cry when you lost the game.

So, are you saying that you never support any law being changed? Or that you ever complain about losing an election?

Didn’t think so.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 21, 2008 10:06 PM
Comment #267837

/s/ever/never

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 21, 2008 10:07 PM
Comment #267838

tcsned
I couldn’t tell what harm or what good it would do. But could you tell me where will it stop if gays do get the right to marry? What other whim is someone going to come up with? Why not give poligamy a chance? Laws took away the Mormons right to have more than one wife. Would you let a 10 year old get married? They should have civil rights. How do we dictate who does or who don’t have civil rights. How about the right to drink alchol? What limit should we put on that? How about the right to drive a car what limit should we put on that? And what about the 40 million children that never got the chance to have rights because liberals said they didn’t have any rights because they were not human.

Posted by: KAP at October 21, 2008 10:37 PM
Comment #267839

Lawnboy
I support laws being changed as long as they benefit more than just a few people.

Posted by: KAP at October 21, 2008 10:40 PM
Comment #267841

KAP,

I’m sorry, but what do you think the reasoning behind the first ten Amendments to the Constitution?

The whole concept of Democracy or Republic is one man one vote, or ‘majority rule’…but, the founders knew that left to the majority, many natural law rights would be trampled down…hence, the amendments…the rights to freedom of speech, press. assembly, religion, etc., were all provided to protect the individual from an over-reaching majority…so please, no more with the majority thingee where civil and human rights are concerned…our Constitution says no to that…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 21, 2008 10:55 PM
Comment #267842
I support laws being changed as long as they benefit more than just a few people.

So, you prefer a tax cut for 95% of working families instead of a tax cut primarily for the top 5%.

Right?

Because a tax cut for 95% benefits more than just a few people.

Right?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 21, 2008 11:07 PM
Comment #267844

Government’s role in licensing marriage is for public health reasons. Incest causes birth defects. STD’s speak for themselves. What other reason for government involvement? I don’t know.

I have no opinion as to whether homosexual people marry each other. My reason for replying to this post is to point out the futility of the entire issue.

This is a “wedge” issue that divides people simply for the sake of dividing people. If this were not forced into the public arena it would have minimal, if no, effect on the current situation we as a country find ourselves in.


Posted by: Weary Willie at October 21, 2008 11:31 PM
Comment #267845
But could you tell me where will it stop if gays do get the right to marry?

Ya gotta love the slippery slope argument:

“We shouldn’t change the law in such a way that would benefit millions of Americans and tangibly harm exactly no one because, someday, somewhere, or somehow, doing so might lead us in the future to approach a different issue differently.”

Really?

The argument of the slippery slope is a very weak argument for this issue. Would gay marriage be the beginning of the slippery slope? Or did the slope first start to slip when we realized that it was acceptable for white people and black people to marry each other? After all, there were people at the time who felt the same revulsion over that issue that many feel over homosexuals. They were wrong then, and the issue isn’t different now.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 21, 2008 11:40 PM
Comment #267849

WW,

Yeah, it is a wedge issue that will not be solved here, or anywhere for a while…but the thread started with a supposition, i.e., our own Democratic leadership, Obama/Biden may be letting the party, gays, and America down, because both have been very weak on the issue. It is true, they have, and it is to our shame that they have…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 22, 2008 12:23 AM
Comment #267850

Actually, considering the subject, and the target of the subject, why are those on the right even contributing to the discourse? It is no skin off a Republican’s nose if a Democrat thinks his leadership is letting him down on an issue, and it is no skin off a Republican’s nose if Democrats disagree on the issue. The issue is a perceived weakness on the part of leadership in the Democratic party, not gay marriage.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 22, 2008 12:29 AM
Comment #267855
were all provided to protect the individual from an over-reaching majority…

A fact that conservatives and progressives both have to ignore in order to further their agenda. :(

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 22, 2008 2:05 AM
Comment #267856

This was an issue here (well, close by, anyway) at a school board meeting….

http://www.khsltv.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=3012@khsl.dayport.com

Posted by: janedoe at October 22, 2008 2:17 AM
Comment #267859

KAP:

I never mentioned religion,

Oh, so may we take it that your sole motivation for arguing to deny gay people their rights can be neatly boiled down to your own base prejudice?

the only ones who are crying because they aren’t getting their way is you liberals.

As if there are no such people as gay conservatives. Btw, this isn’t about “liberals getting our way” it’s about equal rights for all American citizens, regardless of their political philosophy or voting preferences. If you folks think you can somehow twist our demand for civil rights and equality into something demonic and evil, we’ll need to seriously start questioning your sanity.

I’ve taught my children to respect the wishs of the majority

That’s funny, in my family we’ve always believed in showing everyone respect — until of course, they begin giving us reasons not to. As for the wishes of the majority? They don’t trump the rights of Americans. Nothing does. And anyone who claims they do, clearly doesn’t believe in our Constitution.

And let me just add that those who somehow believe that our Constitutional rights are up for grabs, or no longer apply, or only apply to some, pose a grave danger to freedom and democracy.

and not cry when you lost the game.

This is no game KAP. We are talking about the Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness of a large number of our fellow Americans. And make no mistake, ultimately, we will not lose — because progressives will never give up fighting for the rights of all Americans. Indeed, nothing can stop Progress, and it will not ever be defeated. Not by religious beliefs, or old fashioned notions, or popular opinions, or long held prejudices. Not by anything.

There was once a time when the ‘Party of Lincoln’ was the party that fought for progress and equality for all. But then, the Republicans relinquished the progessive banner, and handed it over to the Democratic party. Democrats have done a pretty damn good job of carrying it, too. But regardless of what political party that banner is handed to, those people who believe in progress and equality for all will continue to carry that fight ever forward. Until the self-evident truth that All are Equally deserving of the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is finally fulfilled.

In fact, many progressives see that The United States of America was pretty much purposely designed to play out a history of such struggles. So it really is something we can all be very proud of.

Now, I’d love to reply to your other post as well, but it’s late. Maybe tomorrow.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at October 22, 2008 3:30 AM
Comment #267863

Weary Willie - the governments role in licensing marriage is about property and has evolved over the years. When the country was founded the property that was licensed was the woman herself, now it is about dividing mutual assets. Health is a factor but not the central issue. None of these reasons are any different between straight or gay marriages.

I don’t see this as a wedge issue. Is it uncomfortable for some people - yes. Is it controversial - yes. But I see this as a civil rights issue. Gay men and women have been persecuted in this society since its founding. They have been forced to live in the shadows and live double lives. Thankfully, the younger generation isn’t as close minded as my generation and the generations older than me and this problem won’t be a problem in 20 years. Even though things are going to be changing, I think we need to speak up and deal with this today because everyday that we allow an injustice to continue is one day too many.

The way George Bush used gay marriage was as a wedge issue because he whipped up the christian right with gay marriage ballot initiatives to bring out the anti-gay vote. That is a lot different than trying to give a group of people the same rights that everyone else has. That is a big difference.

Posted by: tcsned at October 22, 2008 7:34 AM
Comment #267869

“As for the wishes of the majority? They don’t trump the rights of Americans. Nothing does. And anyone who claims they do, clearly doesn’t believe in our Constitution”

What the hell VV? Without trumping the rights of Americans, Obama’s agenda will never work. The entire far-left is almost totally dependent on trumping others rights for what they see as “fair.”
Are you now agreeing that Obama “clearly doesn’t believe in our Constitution?”

Posted by: kctim at October 22, 2008 9:18 AM
Comment #267873

Shhh, don’t trifle VV with details, kctim. After all, don’t you know that paying more in taxes is patriotic? What are you, selfish and uncaring about the needs of others?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 22, 2008 10:31 AM
Comment #268020

Apparently I shouldn’t Rhinehold.
Amazing how some think they should be able to pick and choose which rights are “for ALL.”

Posted by: kctim at October 23, 2008 10:05 AM
Comment #268046

kctim,
Most of the time in this blog, you’re not talking about rights. As KAP did above, you frequently try to conflate “rights” with something that merely offends your own personal sensibilities.
When you do get it right, you’re usually talking about the right outlined in the second amendment.
Also, being of a Libertarian bent, it’s very obvious that folks like you and Rhiney will never agree with the concept of “promote the common welfare” mentioned in the Preamble of our Constitution.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at October 23, 2008 11:30 AM
Comment #268052

VV
I am talking about rights, I just apply the fairly, as they were meant to be. I don’t pick and choose which rights I think are worthy or when and how to apply them as you guys do.

I am pro-choice, but I don’t limit that to that which “merely offends my own personal sensibilities.” I have no sympathy for smokers who get cancer or for obese people, but if I believe a woman should have control over her body, then I must believe everybody else should have control over their body, or I am a hypocrit.
If I believe govt does not have the right to dictate who people love and how they express that love, then I must believe govt does not have the right to dictate who people must care for and force them to care in a certain way, or I am a hypocrit.
I could go on and on like that with every issue and if you were to be honest with yourself, you would see that I apply rights equally and fairly for ALL of them, even the ones I disagree with.

I can’t speak for Rhinehold, but I firmly believe govt should “promote the common welfare.” The concept I disagree with is in replacing the word promote, with provide. Especially when one believes in taking away the rights of one in order to “provide” for another.

Whats very obvious VV, is that folks like you will never agree with folks like me because I believe in the concept of the entire Constitution and ALL of the rights within it, rather than just the parts and rights which support a certain agenda and personal beliefs.

Posted by: kctim at October 23, 2008 12:12 PM
Comment #268062
it’s very obvious that folks like you and Rhiney will never agree with the concept of “promote the common welfare” mentioned in the Preamble of our Constitution.

I get it quite clearly and I understand the difference between ‘promote’ and ‘provide’.

Something too few people understand these days I fear.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 23, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #268065

Oldguy Asked me about the high Taxes here in NY state a few weeks ago, I pay my fair share and I’m frugal with myself, and i don’t object to most, Just some observations about the subject when i came backup here last July the price of diesel fuel was $. 5.19 a gallon, I took route 70 this time i wanted to see some heartland middle America and i took my time diesel was $ 3.99 in Oklahoma and Kansas and Missouri, where i always remember seeing wheat growing in Kansas i saw Corn i went right through Russell Kansas Hi Bob dole and spoke to some farmers about corn and they said never again in that area and the southern parts, they were dry this year and had to irrigate more and buy new equipment to handle the corn, with wheat they didn’t it just grows and drys, also they paid high costs for fuel and fertilizer and herbicides in a nut shell even with the stupid Ethanol subsidies allowed they were losing there shirts and most of them said they are going to plant wheat and soybeans next year because they don’t need near as much expenses to grow in those ares. Also i talked to smokers here in NY where Cigarette’s are $7.25 a pack I said good time to guit nope they go down to Pennsylvania and buy them and also they order on line to Indian Reservations in NY and pay $23.00 to $36.00 a carton and order and buy for there friends. same thing with the fuel it’s a lot cheaper only 15 miles away in Penn st.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 23, 2008 1:11 PM
Comment #268067

Mr. Webster says:

Promote

2a: to contribute to the growth or prosperity of…

Provide

3: to provide what is needed for sustenance or support…

Yep, I know the difference now too.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 23, 2008 1:14 PM
Comment #268173

I don’t agree with Biden or Palin on their stance on gay marriage, but I respect Biden for having given it thought and come to the conclusion he has. I also respect McCain for having given it thought and come to the conclusion he has.

On the other hand, I think Palin is simply parroting the party line: I think she has given this issue no more thought than what it took to receive, accept and regurgitate the evangelical Christian dogma espoused by her church and her party. This is not prejudice or hatred or anger directed at her; it simply reflects what I know about her, including research I have done outside the MSM common knowledge.

She’s way too much like Bush in this regard and I’ve had almost 8 too many years too much of the the chimpster. We need some people who are engaged and thoughtful running this country now, after all this time not having them.

I’m willing to accept that the engaged, thoughtful people will not always agree with me.

Posted by: EJN at October 24, 2008 12:12 PM
Comment #268185

EJN - I would almost have the opposite view - I think Obama and Biden have made a political calculation that supporting gay marriage would hurt them with independent voters. I don’t think McCain is especially homophobic nor does he have a strong religious opposition - I could be wrong but he seems to be pretty secular and takes on farther right positions to pander to his base. Once again, a political calculation. Palin, on the other hand, belongs to a church that espouses converting gay people, members of church’s like hers tend to think of homosexuality as a sin. She is the one I see as consistent with her core beliefs, I think her beliefs are dead wrong but consistent.

Posted by: tcsned at October 24, 2008 1:01 PM
Comment #268197

@tcsned: “I think Obama and Biden have made a political calculation that supporting gay marriage would hurt them with independent voters.”

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I have noted plenty of times when these two have gone against what I thought was right, but never when I thought their decision was made on the basis of “X is right but Y is more politically expedient, so Y it shall be”.

Palin, on the other hand is all politics, all the time.

Posted by: EJN at October 24, 2008 1:59 PM
Comment #268258

Lawnboy, in Roman times, a restriction on marriages between the elderly was a part of the Pappian Law. In classical societies, and to this day, some Jewish rabbis and some eastern Orthodox priests are expected to have real marriages for the purpose of procreating children, in order to be considered for full participation. Needless to say, the most problematic part of this is the position of women, who are expected to produce children frequently enough to indicate that there is nothing wrong with either of the parties.

This is a part of history that continues today, manifesting in the idea that there is no such thing as gay, which is still a pretty new concept. In a country where so many come from such a variety of origins, we have always had more of a variety of things described as marriage, than would be allowed in any of the countries from where we originated, in many of which there was no such concept as romantic love.

People seek to define marriage to define what is required for full participation in the benefits of the society. We have basically descended to the lowest form of Roman marriage, usus. We agree to use eachother until one of us wants to use someone else. This really hasn’t worked out that well.

A little more than fifty years ago, a woman escaped from her drunk abusive husband with her five children, and married an elderly neighbor. We were all confused about why these children had a different last name, and everyone stared at this woman in church, to see if whe would attempt to receive communion.

About the same time, another younger woman moved in with a man who was married to someone else, also a drunk, and later married him and adopted his children from the first wife. Her parents and family disowned her and didn’t speak to her for twenty years. It wasn’t that long ago, and things don’t change as fast as some might like.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 24, 2008 11:04 PM
Comment #268273

I do not support the faddish redefinition of marriage any more than I condone polygamy or group marriages or any other twisted contortion of marriage. Everyone has the same rights and privileges under the constitution. Either marriage is between a man or a woman or it becomes just whatever it is you want it to be and whatever you want to arbitrarily define it to be. I could use a couple more wives too but I can’t.

Defending traditional morals and values, and Western Civilizations definition of marriage for the last 6,000 years, is not discrimination and hatred but common sense and the proper preservation of the family structure and a sacred institution.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at October 25, 2008 1:26 AM
Comment #268278

David H,

Six thousand years ago to the present there have been several definitions of ‘marriage’, and there still are today…there were more than a few just a hundred or so years ago even in America.

You guys wish to put something in perspective, but don’t use perspective to do it…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2008 9:21 AM
Comment #268322
I could use a couple more wives too but I can’t.

Now, that’s scary !

Posted by: janedoe at October 25, 2008 2:57 PM
Comment #268331

janedoe,

It’s not scary until he tells you…but I can’t…what?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2008 3:58 PM
Comment #268338

dude, based on the mindset, it could be fortunate….? that he can’t….? ;)

Posted by: janedoe at October 25, 2008 4:50 PM
Comment #268340

janedoe,

Damn, you’re good…;)

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2008 4:56 PM
Post a comment