Third Party & Independents Archives

The Gay Ceiling

Watching the Daily Show tonight I saw how truly sad the far right really is. Bill Bennett formerly chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities from 1981-1985 and secretary of education from 1985-1988, under Reagan, and serving as drug czar from 1989-1990 under President Bush the 1st’s came on to speak about gay marriage.

Bennett's arguments on gay marriage were as ridiculous as his statements on black people made on September 30th 2005. At that date Bennett said, "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down" (1). So since this man is such a 'great thinker' (yeah right) it makes since that he would speak for the far right on gay marriage.

In speaking with Daily Show host Jon Stewart, Bennett did what the far right seems to always do, he came up with ridiculous arguments. Bennett argued that allowing gay marriage would break the entire institute of marriage, and would result in people claiming that if gays could get married than they had the right to polygamy. Bennett went on to show his strange brand of logic to argue that gays are in families, as sons and daughters but should not be able to have families (meaning them being a mother or father), host Jon Stewart quickly zinged Bennett saying that Bennett had thought up a kind of Gay Ceiling in families.


Posted by Richard Rhodes at June 6, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #155006

When America passes an amendment that requires married persons to pass Parent IQ tests before issuing a birthing license, then, and only then, should we pass an Amendment requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman, (or Hermaphrodite by definition who can of course marry themself, or a man marrying another man after a sex change operation or vice versa).

I think I have made the point about how rediculous this Marriage Amemdment issue is. I mean, if our laws allow the mentally and emotionally and psychiatrically handicapped to marry and parent, why in Buddha’s name are we singling out normal, intelligent, caring, productive and committed gays as not having the same privilege?

Is the gay couple down the street being married going to destroy my own marriage to my wife somehow? Is the gay cop on the corner going to destroy my child’s life by helping my child down from a tree? Rediculous. This is a religious power play, pure and simple, fed by irrational fears amongst a majority of the public that there is some kind of connection between pedophilia, divorce, and homosexuality. It is an irrational fear because there is no connection any more than there is between heterosexuality and divorce and pedophilia.

Bottom line, let marriage be between a man and a woman, right along with guaranteeing committed civil legal unions between Gays. Nice compromise, with only the extremists on either side being put out by it. But there’s the rub. The extremists on the religious right want the Amendment so they can set court case law precedent for gay couples being abnormal under law and less entitled to social privileges and benefits than heterosexual couples.

When one looks at two colors and tells them apart, one discriminates between them, by definition. Singling out marriage for heteros but not gays is a discrimination, based on relgious precepts. Homoesexuality has been an integral part of every great civilization in the history of our species, and predates marriage unless one views history only through to contradictory literal interpretation of the Bible.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2006 12:36 AM
Comment #155007

The problem with your post is that you completely failed to respond to Bennett’s point about the “right to polygamy.” It certainly would be the case that polygamists would fight for federal marriage rights.

Posted by: Scottie at June 7, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #155010

Scottie, polygamists in the Church of Latter Day Saints has been doing that since the beginning. Even legal, it never caught on. Your argument is null and void.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2006 12:45 AM
Comment #155012

Scottie: The reason I “faild to respond to Bennett’s point about the right to polygamy” is because, well, I don’t really think it is a point at all. But since you commented I will respond. First polygamy and gay marriage have nothing to do with each other. You can’t deny people their rights, in this case it is the right to marry someone of the same sex, because some other group may at a later point say that if gays can marry than their philosophy on marrige should be accepted too, in this case we are talking about polygamists. If polygamists demand the right to polygamy after gay marriage is solidifed than well that can be discussed and debated on its own merit. But to deny people their rights because someone else may do something else some time in the future is absurd.
Is that sufficient?

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at June 7, 2006 12:49 AM
Comment #155014

I must be crazy, because I was brought up to believe that love was the most important part of a marriage.

Posted by: beijing rob at June 7, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #155027

I love conservatives. Bill Bennet flew immediately out to Vegas and bet his children’s inheritance at the roulette table, even if he has forgotten their names. He was scheduled for another speech on Family values for next monday.

Bill has such an important message for us all to bleet to. Baaah! Baaaah!

Posted by: gergle at June 7, 2006 2:52 AM
Comment #155065

The whole notion of this being a religious thing is a red-herring to me. It’s all about fear. If the right-wing can add another layer of things to be worried about, it takes people’s attention away from things that really matter. The only reason this is on the front page again is because it is an election year. No one wants this amendment to pass, they only want to use the issue to fan the flames and get the “true-beleivers” to the polls again.

The late reverend William Sloane Coffin had this to say about gay marriage:

“It is not Scripture that creates hostility to homosexuality, but rather hostility to homosexuals that prompt some Christians to recite a few sentences from Paul and retain passages from an otherwise discarded Old Testament law code. In abolishing slavery and in ordaining women we’ve gone beyond biblical literalism. It’s time we did the same with gays and lesbians. The problem is not how to reconcile homosexuality with scriptural passages that condemn it, but rather how to reconcile the rejection and punishment of homosexuals with the love of Christ. It can’t be done. So instead of harping on what’s “natural,” let’s talk about what’s “normal,” what operates according to the norm. For Christians, the norm is Christ’s love. If people can show the tenderness and constancy in caring that honor’s Christ’s love, what matters their sexual orientation? Shouldn’t a relationship be judged by its inner worth rather than by its outer appearance? When has a monopoly on durable life-warming love been held by legally wed heterosexuals?”

Using a couple of well-worn verses from the bible to justify your prejudices is a tried and true tactic that small minds have used for centuries to keep the status quo. This used to be exactly the same tactic on interracial marriage. Amazing, the republic still stands.

Can we not move the debate toward something reasonable? How about we talk about figuring a way to stop blowing the crap out of each other? That might be more constructive.

Posted by: Dennis at June 7, 2006 8:36 AM
Comment #155069


You gave a correct quote from Bennett, but it was far from a complete quote. Here is the complete quote, which changes the tenor and meaning of his statement dramatically:

“If it were your sole purpose to reduce crime, Bennett said, “You could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.

“That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.”

He’s technically correct on the fact that it would reduce crime, and 100% correct that its morally reprehensible to consider it.

Secondly, there are currently cases in which polygamists are using the same legal reasoning that the same-sex proponents are using. It’s not a potential circumstance—its an actual circumstance:

I’ve commented in a different thread on how the same sex marriage thing should be looked at from the idea of what limitations are acceptable for marriage. Here’s the link if you are interested; mine is the 5th posting.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 7, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #155086

The previous post should have been addressed to Richard, not Scottie. I’d appreciate if the editors could make that change on my behalf and then delete this post. Thanks

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 7, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #155103


To me it doesn’t change the meaning of his statement at all. No one believed he was actually seriously considering this as an option or didn’t think it was morally reprehensible. The anger expressed over his comments is that he believes it would work.

Posted by: JJ at June 7, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #155122


I’m not racist so please don’t attribute any of my comment in that manner. The statistic say this: “Blacks comprise 13 percent of the national population, but 30 percent of people arrested, 41 percent of people in jail,18 and 49 percent of those in prison. The source is 19 BJS, 1998 Sourcebook, Table 4.10 (arrests), Table 6.28 (jail inmates); Allen J. Beck and Christopher J. Mumola, “Prisoners in 1998,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice (August 1999).

If those numbers are correct, then if you lowered the number of blacks in the population, the ensuing rate of crime would decrease as well. The higher crime rate of blacks could be due to societal or socio-economic issues rather than race, but the statistics show that these issues affect blacks more than non-blacks.

Taken in that light, with out the shadow of racism, I think Bennett’s comment takes on a new meaning.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 7, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #155132

We could abort all the babies. Imagine how awesome things would be then! 0 crime rate!

AND (i just thought of this) if we outlaw ALL marrage - that totally solves our poligamy probelm.

Bill Bennet is horrible person and the fact that your actually defending such a moronic statement makes me wonder if youre arguing for sake of it.

Posted by: justin at June 7, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #155144


Would it really decrease the crime rate? In the short run maybe, but in the long run no. The reasons for crime are numerous as you mentioned, but none are solved. A new group of people will just face the problems the black community encounters.

What I interpret he is saying is if there are no black people, there is no crime. When he mentions “black baby” I interpret it as black people are predisposed to crime.

Posted by: JJ at June 7, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #155150

David good reply, but why mince words about whether gays will have a “civil union”, or a “marriage”? That seems a little silly to me. If gay people are legally joined together by a justice of the peace, what is the big difference over what this should then be called?
When we boil it all down, and toss aside all the emotional baggage that people always want to drag along with this issue, marriage in the eyes of our government really has nothing whatsoever to do with God or Religion. Instead it is only a legal distinction which, if we believe in the ideas of all people being “created equal”, and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” should only be concerned with ensuring the exact same civil rights and liberties on every couple who is joined together in America.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 7, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #155154


I’d agree that Bennett’s statement could be interpreted in the manner you have interpreted it. It wasn’t all that smart a thing to say. I’m saying there is also another interpretation to it, which I’ve laid out in statistics.

I also think that if you look at Bennett’s history, you don’t see a racist person. Many disagree with his viewpoints, and he certainly has moral flaws like we all do, but I have not seen anything to indicate racism.

It reminds me a bit of when Howard Cosell said of Alvin Garrett of the Washington Redskins, “a little monkey”. Many called Cosell a racist because Garrett was black, but they didn’t notice that Cosell had also called Mike Adamle, a white receiver, a little monkey. Cosell used the term to describe quick, wiry and small receivers of any race.

Cosell was anything but a racist, but people tried to claim he was due to this comment. Same thing with Bennett. If there is anything in Bennett’s history to suggest he is a racist, I’ve yet to see it, and would request anyone to provide a basis for it.

My comments on same-sex marriage still stand.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 7, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #155158

Why would anyone want more than one wife? Can’t you imagine having more than one mother-in-law? Just kidding I had a wonderful mother-in-law.
I personally hope Congress does pass the Marriage Amendment. At least they’d be showing some spine on something. But this is an election year and 1/3 of the Senate and ALL of the House are up for reelection. They’re just going to make noise about it but do nothing.
After Nov. we won’t here anything more about it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 7, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #155163


I must admit that I don’t believe he had any racist or malicious intent in what he said. I just believe he had very poor choice in words, and should of apologized for it.

Posted by: JJ at June 7, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #155172

Bennett’s statement on aborting all Black babies would work. Just the same as aborting all White babies would work.
Either way crime would go down as fewer criminals would be born.
If he had said White babies instead of Black would y’all be as pissed about his statement as ya are now? Somehow I don’t think so.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 7, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #155196


Those are the same arguments used when IQ data came out in the 70’s showing that blacks were “stupider” than whites. You and Bennet are using comments “blacks cause more crime” and “gay marriage will result in polygamy” then excusing the first by saying “blacks are criminals because of socio-economic status” but leave the second comment to stand. In neither does logic stand. More blacks are criminals because more minorities are poor and disenfranchised. Reduce the poor and disenfranchized, then you reduce crime. It has nothing to do with the racial genome and it should never have been mentioned. The “new light” you refer to is simply making excuses for a tortuous argument.
As for part 2; polygymists want legitamacy and it has nothing to do with gay civil rights. It has nothing to do with the root cause of “is it bad for society for gay to marry?”, which a majority of people think it is bad. But then 80% of Americans thought it should be illegal to have mixed race marriages at the time SCOTUS said miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. In the end, putting discrimination in the Constitution is inexcusable. Wait until “they” come for you.


I’m “pissed” everytime someone in the public arena says something that is clearly intended to be manipulative, divisive, and detractive.

Posted by: Dave at June 7, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #155199

Ron Brown,

Of course I would be pissed. The underlying premise, that criminals are born, is the problem whether it is attributed to blacks, whites, or whoever. The problem is that you can’t associate statistics to a group of people, babies, that have made no choices in life or whose path is yet to be chosen. What is true in the past may not be true now.

Posted by: JJ at June 7, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #155217


I’m afraid your logical reasoning skipped a few beats there. I agree that the higher percentage of blacks convicted of crimes might be due to issues other than race—in fact, that’s precisely what I stated. But the fact remains that blacks for some reason have a higher percentage of criminals than their percentage of the population would suggest.

I’d agree that there are a variety of reasons for crime. Those are the issues that should be focused on. Lets say its poverty—then lets attack poverty. If there is more poverty among the black community, then it would not be accurate to say that poverty is caused by being black, but it would be accurate to say that more blacks are poor, and thereby more affected by poverty.

I never said that “gay marriage will result in polygamy”. Those are YOUR words only. You’ve either misinterpreted my words, or purposefully distorted them. I won’t lay claim to knowing whether there was any intent in your characterization, but the end result is the same: I never said it….you did.

What I said was that there are cases involving polygamists in which the legal reasoning is identical to that of cases involving same-sex marriage. That is vastly different from saying that “gay marriage will result in polygamy”. If you think they are the same, then your logic patterns are simply incorrect.

Polygamists are saying that marriage should not be limited. Same-sex marriage proponents are saying that marriage should not be limited. The only difference in the argument is the specific issue of what should not be limited. For polygamists, its the number of people involved, while for same-sex marriage proponents, its the gender of those involved. The rest of the argument is identical. Do you disagree? If so, tell me which court cases you’ve read up on and how the legal arguments differ.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 7, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #155220


How is “polygamists are using the same legal reasoning that the same-sex proponents are using” not the same as “result in”? I.e. If the gay rights argument works then you’re afraid that it will “result in” a succesful polygamist argument. Yes?
BTW: Marriage is a social contract defining mutual responsibilities between two people of legal age. Where does polygamy fit in that? It is you who are defining people as heterosexual and homesexuals as not-people.

I’m going to skip the circular logic presented in your “black” argument.

Posted by: Dave at June 7, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #155243

Why anyone would waste time and effort debating this same sex marriage issue when the only result is to arrive at a stalemate with your counterpart is beyond me.

The only frame(s) of reference as to whether same sex marriage is a viable life style for all concerned is comparisons/references to opposite sex marriage.

If at some point same sex marriage becomes legal on a larger, no restriction scale, all the same sex partners who are living together as “married partners” will get married and nothing will change.

I would guess that the “Religious Right” are equally upset about those opposite sex people who are living together although not wed.

Does anybody have figures or some SWAG as to how many unmarried same sex households there are in comparison to opposite sex unmarried households.

Posted by: steve smith at June 7, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #155272

The only reason I can think of to why you would oppose any two humans sharing their life together, in an institution like marriage, with the protections and responsibility that it entails,is that you got a thing for one of the people involved.

Posted by: jblym at June 7, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #155298


We’ve had this problem before, you and I. I write something….you write something entirely different and attribute it to me…I correct you…you continue to mischaracterize my words.

If you read Richard Rhodes original posting for this thread, you’ll see that he talked about Bill Bennett coming up with “ridiculous” ideas, like How allowing gay marriage would “result in people claiming that if gays could get married than they had the right to polygamy.”

My point was to show that its not a ridiculous idea at all. Its a reality. Its already happened in court cases. You can disagree with the contention the polygamists are making, but you cannot disagree with the fact that those contentions are being made.

Marriage has typically been defined as between a man and a woman. That is being changed as we speak. Polygamists want the definition changed further in order to get rid of the restriction of how many people can be married. Its really very easy to understand, Dave, if you are willing to try.

Its about restrictions…some people want certain restrictions for marriage. Currently, gender, age, family relation and number are the restrictions on marriage. Gays want to get rid of gender as a restriction, polygamists want to get rid of number, some societies already do away with age, while undoubtedly there are some Jerry Springerites who think marrying family members is A-ok. The bottom line is that in each situation, someone wants to redefine marriage in order to remove the restriction. Understand?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 7, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #155301


lol…I have been reading through the posts and as always, you are very well spoken…I have understood every word and the directive behind it…stop explaining, your words have already spoken for themselves!!

Posted by: Traci at June 7, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #155316

Bill Bennett’s poor choice of words were actually quoting a liberal idea that abortion is the number one factor in the drop in the crime rate since the ’80s. Liberals have used this theory as a defense of abortion and Bennett was simply saying that it is a morally reprehensible idea. So, what liberals truly believe, Bennett puts into words and catches nine kinds of hell for it. Typical.

Posted by: Duano at June 7, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #155324

Justin said: “We could abort all the babies. Imagine how awesome things would be then! 0 crime rate!”

In “Freakanomics,” Steven Leavitt points out that the crime rate went down significantly when abortion was legalized.

Consider that, amigos.

Posted by: pianofan at June 7, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #155330

Nicely done, pianofan, nicely done.

Posted by: ray at June 7, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #155361


That is exactly what Bennett was talking about when he made his now infamous statement. Liberals hold that statistic up as some sort of brazen serpent to prove that abortion is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and Bill was simply saying how morally reprehensible that type of thinking is.

Posted by: Duano at June 7, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #155400

Try to keep up here.
Marriage is defined as being between two people. Not three, not four, not eleventyhundred, not one man/one woman, or two men and eight women. Get it yet? Two people? Polygamy is more than two. Get it yet?.
Only the religious right thinks that “married” is a religiously owned practice. Only the religious right and homophobes think gays are less than human and don’t deserve to be “married”. “Married” is authorized by the state. As far as the gov’t concerned it is not by the church.
I understand what you’re saying, I think you’re wrong. You’re just not listening to what I’m saying

Posted by: Dave at June 8, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #155481


You say you understand my point yet you continue to show by your words that you aren’t even close.

Last post from me—-its too tiring repeating my words and seeing you change them. YOU say marriage is defined as between two people; thats the same as ME saying marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. The point of all this is that people are trying to change the definition.

You can easily say to me: “Who are you that you get to define marriage as between men and women?”

And others could say to you: “Who are you that you get to define marriage as between TWO people?”

Its the same exact question, just a slightly different focus. That’s why I stated right from the start that the issue is not same-sex marriage, but rather what limits there should be on marriage.

Please point to anything—anything at all—that I’ve ever stated on WB that would indicate that I think “gays are less than human.” You won’t be able to, but since you’ve accused me of thinking that, you really only have two choices: Prove it or apologize for saying it. There’s no other honorable fall back position for you.

I disagree with homosexuality in the same way that I disagree with promiscuity. I recognize that others will disagree, but that is my position. I don’t think either group is less than human in any way, but I think their actions in the sexual realm are wrong. I don’t hold myself as superior to either group because of the fact that I am not guilty of either of those things. I have plenty of other things I am guilty of that they are not.

Where you see hate, it is only because you are projecting a thought onto my words. I only say that something is wrong, and I focus on that action, not the person. Its apparently hard for you to understand that distinction, but I urge you to continue to try.

Posted by: j at June 8, 2006 7:59 AM
Comment #155541


I agree, so let’s get rid of the rhetoric.

You asked if I could site case law. I am not a lawyer so instead, I will ask these simple quesitons. Please try to reply directly.

(1) You state you believe homosexuality and promiscuity are “wrong”. Do you believe it is governments purpose to legislate “right” vs. “wrong” (I’ll use the word morality)? This is seperate from behaviors that negatively impact other people unwillingly and directly.
(1a) Would you make either or both of those behaviors illegal?
(1b) If so, please justify where you would draw the boundary and what “moral code” you would base the decision on.

(2) If the law said marriage was between a man and a woman, than why do you need a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? Marriage is a state right and my state says any two people can get married.

(3) Who are you to prohibit people in my state from getting married if we say it is OK?

Our argument is that you apply a normative definition (man + woman = marriage) that is not universally consistent with current legislation (i.e. that marriage is a social contract between two people and that the US Constitution make marriage a state choice). Also, you apply your own morality to other peoples life choices or conditions and believe it is acceptable to do so through legislation. To me, there is no difference with this amendment and the Nuremberg and Jim Crow Laws.

Posted by: Dave at June 8, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #155666


I’ll answer with the stipulation that you’ve changed the playing field. The discussion started, as I’ve already said, with Richard saying that the idea of same-sex marriage leading to polygamy is “ridiculous”. I showed that its not ridiculous in that it has already happened.

Now to your questions:

1) I think govt DOES legislate morality to a degree. The example I’d use is in how govt makes prostitution illegal. I’d agree with it to that degree.
1a. No

2) The Constitution was set up with the possibility of amendment. Amendments were made to be difficult, hence the 2/3’s requirement. I have no problem whatsoever with an amendment being put forth and voted upon. It was voted down. This is all fully within the realm of how the Founders wanted the Constitution to work.

3) I’m a US citizen just like you are. We both can use our legal system and Constitutional process to enact laws. If enough people agree on a law, it gets voted in. If not enough people agree, then it gets voted down. That’s how our system works. If you disagree with my assessment of how the system works, let me know specifics.

You say that I “apply a normative definition (man + woman = marriage) that is not universally consistent with current legislation”. But if you look at the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was enacted in 1996, the definition of marriage is as follows: ” the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

It sounds like you are now arguing whether state’s rights vs federal rights should hold sway with regard to same-sex marriage. That’s really a different discussion.

Back to the topic: a polygamist could ask you your question #3 and you’d have no argument against it. Yet you’ve come out against polygamy in your comments, if I’ve read them correctly.

I already stated I’d post no more on this, but I did want to respond to your direct questions. I’m open to further discussion, but….don’t want to further bore everyone.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 8, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #155712


Thanks for re-joining. I’d probably not have returned if someone had continued to put words in my mouth.

Yesterday I read your suggestion on the other blog, and while I initially disagreed, I had time to consider it last night and think it might actually have some merit. Right now the only comparative analysis anyone has done is between straight and gay. Whether the differences are valid is literally arguable. If based on your suggestion we include age and number into the analysis, I feel that the focus might momentarilly shift from dogma to law, and give those that support gay marriage something on the other side of the feasibility spectrum.

My thoughts are that in the polygamy debate, people against it will be quick to point out that you would need to seriously redefine or augment the legal structure of marriage to make it work. Beyond the appllication of a corporate business model, financial responsibility of more that two persons would be difficult to manage.
It would also create enormous issues regarding child custody if one of the marriages were disolved. Example; How would a court determine the best interests of a child where the choices were a biological mother with one income .vs. a biological father and stepmother with two incomes, and additional siblings?

The Age factor is tricky. From intial research the widely accepted age of consent for marriage is 18. Individual states vary on how many years younger than 18 a person can marry with parental consent, the youngest being 14. In several states a person under age 14 may still marry if there is a pregnancy, parental consent, and written consent from a family court.
I think it would be difficult if not impossible to convince a child psychology or child development expert that a child can make an unbiased adult autonomous decision to marry at an age below 14. The way society views child sexual abuse, and statutory rape, I would be hard pressed to beleive it would garner much support.

With those two factors included in the analysis, I think the case for same gender marriage becomes a bit more palatable. Nothing need change. Legally.

Posted by: DOC at June 8, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #155791

So what’s wrong with polygamy?

Posted by: Hank chapot at June 8, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #155937


I never changed the playing field, I’m just not playing at your game.

My last post in this thread:
(a) The polygamy argument from the FREC has, per an attorney friend of mine, no legal foundation. It is a bogeyman used to scare up the political base and has the same logic foundation as ID. If you believe in ID, then clearly there is nothing to discuss. We’ll have to go our seperate ways on this.
(b) Prostitution is legal in Nevada and victimless sex should never be a crime. From the liberal perspective, prostitution is generally not a victimless crime and does not fit into the morality argument. Nevada protects the workers so “problem fixed”
(c) The so-called DoMA is of dubious constitutionality under articles 4, 5, 9, and 14. Although the “public policy” exception to article 4 does give protection, the act basically doesn’t do much more than allow bigotry to be legalized in some states despite other states wishes and is consistent with the arguments used to support miscegenation laws. There is no state-federal argument. Marriage is specifically a state right unless the Constitution is changed. The DMA is also, IMO, an embarassment to Bill Clinton.
Basically, what you hold to be a proud moment in the Ammendment legal process I see as bigotry and a conveniently political bastardization of what should be a “sacred” document. BTW: Where was Bush the last 19 months on this issue?

To summarize I’ll link here:The ‘values’ voters turn out to be opinion voters. They believe that God hates homosexuals, that superstition trumps science every time, that all those foreigners ought to be sent back where they came from, and that all government programs are wasteful and immoral, except, of course, for the government programs which benefit them. Those are opinions, not values, and willfully ignorant opinions at that.

Posted by: Dave at June 9, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #156163


Prostitution is not legal in Nevada. In a very few counties in Nevada highly regulated brothels are operated. The act of exchanging sex for money is also not illegal in Rhode Island. Solicitation is illegal everywhere in the U.S. A prostitute publicly advertising his or her ammenities on the main drag in Las Vegas is just as guilty of breaking the law as if they were in Churchtown USA.

I don’t think I saw where Joe said he considered this a proud moment in legislation. In direct answer to your question 1b he claimed that he would not make the behaviors illegal. I also don’t understand how you could have the opinion that DoMA “IS” an embarassment to Bill Clinton. You can safely say it “SHOULD BE” but can’t really say “IS”, unless he told you himself. Then of course it wouldn’t be an opinion.

Too many of the religeous right are already trying to make the constitution a sacred document, so I would rather opt to make it an document of agreed rules and ethics.

Posted by: DOC at June 9, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #156195

How is “In a very few counties in Nevada highly regulated brothels are operated” not “Prostitution is legal in Nevada and … Nevada protects the workers” Would you be happy with “parts of Nevada”?
“Sacred” was in quotes, i.e. not to be taken as a literal.
I take back the “proud of” and replace with “satisfied with”
I didn’t say Clinton was embarrased, he still thinks it’s a god idea (as far as I know).

Posted by: Dave at June 9, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #156280

“Legal in Nevada” implies everywhere in Nevada, which is misleading. “Parts of Nevada” is more accurate. Thanks.

Technically the legality of prostitution is state defined, whereas solicitation of prostitution is federally defined.

Sorry if I was overcritical. As viewpoints become more passionate, generalizations tend to occur that may unintentionally misguide, which I imagine is not your objective.

In a different context, the whole “Clinton-DoMa” connection is actually quite funny. I mean c’mon. Clinton? Defense of Marriage?

Posted by: DOC at June 10, 2006 1:09 PM
Post a comment