Can you be anti-gay marriage

[Danno 1,228]

Many basic rights weren't discovered for millenia and were codified into law only in rather recent history - relatively speaking. And they weren't all adopted at once but incrementally. Following the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."), laws and the courts have, over time, made it clear that equality under the law extends to all person regardless of gender, race, religion or place of origin. Not all at once but over time, the court has acknowledged that equality under the law cannot be denied based on any of these traits that a person, quite obviously, does not control.

Marriage, while not specifically discussed in the Constitution, has been identified by this country's highest court as a fundamental and basic human right. In Loving vs. Virgina, the court states that "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." There's no issue of "variation" - I know you always like to try to head down that nonsensical path but you'll have to do that by yourself - but merely an issue of marriage - the state sanctioned bond between two people that wish to commit their lives to each other.

As for that last point of yours, I thought you knew that the laws are a product of the representative bodies that the people elect. You don't have to have a public referendum on every law for that law to be the expression of the people. It's how a representative system of government works.

That was a decent reply with hardly an insult....... whats going on here?

Well you and I just disagree that

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[/i])

Gives anyone or any group the right to define what "marriage means". Any more than they can define what "legal adult" means.

IN no case is anyone denied LIFE LIBERTY OR PROPERTY..... Nor due protection.

In fact you and others love to reference the Loving case as "evidence" but let me ask you, how many people do you suppose on the bench then... or before it, would have ever imagined, some would take that moment and try to use it for this cause?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm very aware of who Ted Olsen is. I'm sure I've known about him longer than you have. I have no idea how he really feels about gay marriage because right now, as an attorney, it's in his best interest to be pro-gay marriage. Attorneys don't always believe in what they advocate for. And working for Bush doesn't make you a conservative. Bush turned out to be a huge disappointment to us in many ways.

I haven't made the point that having worked for Bush proves that Ted is a conservative so there's no need to refute that. An argument can, of course, be made that the Prop 8 case he's looking to take to the Supreme Court has the potential - good potential - to become a major landmark case extending Constitutional Rights to homosexuals, which would further raise his profile as an excellent lawyer. At the same time, I think that he made it fairly clear that he does indeed support same sex marriage in the excellent argument made for it.

My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional right?

My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.

This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: "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."

...

Various federal and state laws have accorded certain rights and privileges to gay and lesbian couples, but these protections vary dramatically at the state level, and nearly universally deny true equality to gays and lesbians who wish to marry. The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.

It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation's multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But while the Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals.

Marriage is a civil bond in this country as well as, in some (but hardly all) cases, a religious sacrament. It is a relationship recognized by governments as providing a privileged and respected status, entitled to the state's support and benefits. The California Supreme Court described marriage as a "union unreservedly approved and favored by the community." Where the state has accorded official sanction to a relationship and provided special benefits to those who enter into that relationship, our courts have insisted that withholding that status requires powerful justifications and may not be arbitrarily denied.

...

I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Laws are not always made by people we elect. Administrative and regulatory laws are made by unelected bureaucrats. Appointed judges make law. Statutory law and executive orders are made elected officials, legislators and the president respectively.

You continue to cite Loving as the source of a right for same sex marriage, however, in subsequent rulings, several courts, including SCOTUS, have maintained that that is not the case. If that were so, then gay marriage would be legal already. It's not, its status as a basic, inalienable right has yet to be established. When and if it is, then we will know if a prior ruling set precedent or whether a new case will set a new precedent. Perhaps one that will set the stage for plural marriage.

My faith has an allowance for plural marriage, but I don't press for it. It's not part of the tradition here any more than gay marriage is. Not everyone who is anti-gay marriage is so do to faith. Those who support it don't all do so from lack of faith either.

As for that last point of yours, I thought you knew that the laws are a product of the representative bodies that the people elect. You don't have to have a public referendum on every law for that law to be the expression of the people. It's how a representative system of government works.

We're still on the path to fulfill that very proposition. And while frustratingly slow, we will get there.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Laws are not always made by people we elect. Administrative and regulatory laws are made by unelected bureaucrats. Appointed judges make law. Statutory law and executive orders are made elected officials, legislators and the president respectively.

I thought I made the point that laws are mostly made by means other than popular vote in a representative system.

You continue to cite Loving as the source of a right for same sex marriage, however, in subsequent rulings, several courts, including SCOTUS, have maintained that that is not the case. If that were so, then gay marriage would be legal already. It's not, its status as a basic, inalienable right has yet to be established. When and if it is, then we will know if a prior ruling set precedent or whether a new case will set a new precedent. Perhaps one that will set the stage for plural marriage.

Actually, the ruling with a much larger impact on the issue is apparently that which you happened to overlook the other day - Lawrence vs. Texas. The ruling put Judge Scalia's pants in a wad in regards to what it means for the states ability to deny homosexuals the benefits of marriage. He saw the writing on the wall - from his dissent:

Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 578; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 567; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution

..

My faith has an allowance for plural marriage, but I don't press for it. It's not part of the tradition here any more than gay marriage is. Not everyone who is anti-gay marriage is so do to faith. Those who support it don't all do so from lack of faith either.

Thanks for acknowledging that people may support the right of homosexuals to enjoy the benefits of marriage based on a variety of factors and that support for homosexual marriage does not translate into people lacking principal, faith, morals or whatnot. And I will concede - once again - the point that factors other than faith may play into a person's opposition to this issue. But whatever the motivation, it has got to be possible to have civilized public debates that do not play on peoples fears and prejudices but allows for reasoned exchange of ideas. The spots that aired in opposition of same sex marriage here in FL and elsewhere were rather repulsive and did nothing but stoke fears.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Danno 1,228]

As should be clear by the graphic below, that's just a matter of time. The victories of the anti-GM crowd are the last hurrahs of a generation that is (thankfully) dying off.

Source: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movable...trends_f_1.html

As I know you are a watcher of polls, you must also conclude the days of easy abortions are numbered?

THese numbers you posted are not limited to Homosexual issues, people today are more accepting of all type of what was considered "deviant or illicit behavior".

In fact people today have a hard time even defining what "perverted" even means when we are talking about sex.

Many people who have watched the culture slide towards the gutter to such a point that there are even -more seekers of Child porn.. than law enforcement resources to catch them.

But AJ, for a number of reasons I am hopeful though not overly. I do believe the pendulum swings back and forth, things do change, often the changes are set in place by things no one foresaw.

For instance, it was not that long ago there was only ONE VOICE in news dissemination, FOX saw a huge whole there filled it and not only have they been rewarded handsomely... but Conservatives have a place where their voice can be heard and both sides of a story will be presented.

Lets just dream for a moment shall we..... what would happen if the HOLLY WOOD CABAL were broken?

Lets be honest, Holly Wood has been a non-stop commercial for G.l.a.d.

We have been watching this for over a decade now, the constant mono portrayal of Homosexuals as intelligent, well reasoned, likeable or as the victim.

They never miss a chance to introduce the "anti-gay" character as unreasonable, hateful, small minded.... though he sometimes "sees the light" before the episode ends.

What would happen if this holly wood cabal were to be challenged in a real way as FoX News shook up the News and News show template. (and as talk radio did as well).

The only hitch to this Fantasy is..... "leftists own this medium of Movies and tv..... by nature".

Call me crazy but, left wing types seem to gravitate to the Arts and related fields in droves, that one fact alone cast some doubt on - breaking the Cabal.

Still it's a sweet dream.

[Peikko 1,575]

Is lesbian sex perverted Danno?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I was more impressed with Scalia's dissent in Lawrence than I am with Olsen's appeal. I work with lawyers and have for a generation. If Olsen truly believes that redefing marriage against the will of the voters of Cali by trying to overthrow the voice of the people in court, than he is no conservative. He's just acting like a lawyer.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Peikko 1,575]

You work for lawyers VW, not with them. Quit trying to pretend you have knowledge and insite that you clearly do not have, it's boring and it's not fooling anyone.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You work for lawyers VW, not with them. Quit trying to pretend you have knowledge and insite that you clearly do not have, it's boring and it's not fooling anyone.

I'm worried about you, PH. Seriously. You need help.

I realize that you exert a lot of effort toward following me on this board and trying to bait me, but it's a fact that you don't know me, have never met me, and know little about the law that would allow you to judge me with any credibility. You enjoy nasty gossip and sharing your misery by occupying this board 24/7. You've spent the last 3 1/2 years attacking me, and to what end? I'm still here, I'm still happy, I have friends here and I live my life the way I want.

In the meantime, you come across looking petty and jealous with the insatiated wish that you can convince everyone to dislike me, as you do. You behave like a playground bully for no sane reason, and that says more about you than it does about me. You don't like me and you think I'm a phony; we all know that. If you have any maturity about you, you can be satisfied that others can judge for themselves and that I'm unimpressed by your accusations, for I know who I am. You, on the other hand, could benefit from some self-awareness.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh dear, here we go again. Sersiouly VW, get a grip. Let your posts stand or fall by their merit, not by who you know or work with.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Please stop the personal attacks and comments aimed at each other rather than at the issue under discussion - they are unnecessary and add nothing to the topic. Address the issues with your disagreements, not each other.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Oh dear, here we go again. Sersiouly VW, get a grip. Let your posts stand or fall by their merit, not by who you know or work with.

I will post as I wish, PH, and I don't need your permission. Back to the topic, and it's not about you.

Thanks, Kathyn.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Laws are not always made by people we elect. Administrative and regulatory laws are made by unelected bureaucrats. Appointed judges make law. Statutory law and executive orders are made elected officials, legislators and the president respectively.

You continue to cite Loving as the source of a right for same sex marriage, however, in subsequent rulings, several courts, including SCOTUS, have maintained that that is not the case. If that were so, then gay marriage would be legal already. It's not, its status as a basic, inalienable right has yet to be established. When and if it is, then we will know if a prior ruling set precedent or whether a new case will set a new precedent. Perhaps one that will set the stage for plural marriage.

My faith has an allowance for plural marriage, but I don't press for it. It's not part of the tradition here any more than gay marriage is. Not everyone who is anti-gay marriage is so do to faith. Those who support it don't all do so from lack of faith either.

By plural marriage you mean having more than one spouse right? That definitely is something that can have a negative impact on society at least in our current world and in the past.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

By plural marriage you mean having more than one spouse right? That definitely is something that can have a negative impact on society at least in our current world and in the past.

I can't argue with that, but it could happen here, too if the definition of marriage is changed under the auspices of equal protection and the "right" to marry beyond one man and one woman.

[Danno 1,228]

I'm worried about you, PH. Seriously. You need help.

I hear ya,

With all that intellect and sage like understanding of the issues MC carries on like she has, one can't but notice her posts are 90% of the time .....pot shots at other people with very little meaningful substance, even in the remaining 10%.