Originally Posted By X-san Ah, the "if not for religion society would break down into lord of the flies chaos overnight" argument.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Straight people destroyed the sanctity of marriage long ago. Maybe it's time for gays to see of they can do a better job of preserving it?" Bravo. Touche.
Originally Posted By X-san I, personally, don't "go crazy and do whatever the heck I want" because I have a moral center that tells me not to. I don't need some preacher to explain it to me, or fear the wrath of god in order to understand right from wrong.
Originally Posted By Elderp What moral center? Your going to end up as worm food, there is no consequences when there is no continuity. No consequences you might as well do what you want.
Originally Posted By X-san That makes no sense. Besides, I don't try to be a good person because of fear of consequences (eternal or otherwise). I do it because I want to. And by the way, what you wrote is quite rude. My moral center is fine, thanks. A lot better than some of the bigoted, homophobic, sexist, angry religious types I've encountered, that's for sure.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder On my way home I finally heard a legal argument (from a talk show hostof all people) against gay marriage. He agreed we need the courts for checks and balances, and told that to callers who bemoaned the idea that voters can pass something but the courts overturn it. However, he said that he feels the US Supremes won't use the compelling interest standard and find gays are a protected class but instead use the rational basis test, wherein if a state can show there's a logical reason for a certain law, it will stand. His reasoning was that marriage has been a man and a woman for so long that the Supremes have no choice but to see that. Interesting that the talk show host is black. HOWEVER, this arguments assumes too much. One, that sexual orientation is a choice. Putting aside the bi-curious people and those who do things simply to shock their friends and family, there is a significant group of men and women who couldn't change their orientation any more than I can change that I'm a 50 year old white guy who loves women. So, number two, THOSE people, who are attracted to members of their same sex, have already been recognized by many states under various domestic partnership laws. The door, therefore, has already been opened to recognize gays as a protected class, because those statutes had to be enacted to preserve certain rights and privileges pursuant to those laws. You can't justify one and not the other, or else you're endorsing the concept of separate but equal all over again. It's going to be interesting. Most of us today haven't really experienced the type of approaching societal sea change that's coming here. Freeing the slaves, giving women the right to vote, the various basic struggles blacks have had and continue to have, etc., have all essentially been before our time. We're going to see all sorts of ugly and greatness.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I wouldn't be surprised if a ballot initiative comes along soon to amend the constitution - the only way that antis can succeed. That's because the constitution says what it says. And the judges know it. The antis are going back to the same tired rhetoric of "activist judges" imposing their will on the poor suffering people. They don't "get" that it's not the judges - it's the constitution. My hope is that those people who might be inclined to support an amendment to ban gay marriage in the abstract would be less willing to retroactively rescind lawful rights that have already been granted - the genie's out of the bottle, the horse has left the barn and there's no turning back. Additionally, other states may soon follow suit - watch for hawaii to tumble next.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They don't "get" that it's not the judges - it's the constitution.> No, it's the judges. And if they are going to start reading things into the Constitution, then the people will have to amend the Constitution to make it plain that what the judges are inventing is not there. It looks like there will be a Constitutional amendment on this matter on California's fall ballot, and chances are it will succeed.
Originally Posted By X-san Looking over the constitutional amandments as they exist today, I'm forced to conclude that such a thing would be the DUMBEST and most bigoted amendment ever. Nothing even comes close to such idiocy, not even prohibition (and we can all see how well that worked out). Pretty sad for a listing of such depth and power that it protects freedoms like speech and religion, abolishes slavery, and might someday include a "homophobe clause". Pitiful.
Originally Posted By X-san Dougles, judges "read things" (in other words, interpret) into the constitution all the time. That's their job, it's what they do. Where in the constitution or any of the amendments, by the way, do you find any information about non-equality? Most of it seems quite the opposite. I'm wondering if the right wing might not be in for the shock of their lives when the dust finally clears (I've no doubt they'll never shut up about it though).
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It looks like there will be a Constitutional amendment on this matter on California's fall ballot, and chances are it will succeed." Someone else who doesn't understand the California Supreme Court has already signaled it would be unconstitutional.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>No, it's the judges.<< No, it isn't. If things were the way you wish they were, there would be no need for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In other words, if the constitution of the State of California (and the US Constitution for that matter) were on your side, there wouldn't be any reason to try and alter it. I'll never understand the ways people justify their bigotry. It's blatant for all to see. (All that choose to open their eyes, that is.)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'll also never understand why people are so threatened by gay marriage. There's absolutely no rational, logical basis for it. But of course, many of the people fighting hard to ban gay marriage would have been working just as hard to ban interracial marriage not so long ago. Shame on you all.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But of course, many of the people fighting hard to ban gay marriage would have been working just as hard to ban interracial marriage not so long ago.<< Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Too bad those pesky judges like Earl Warren had to go threaten the sanctity of American culture by deciding on Brown v. Board. Once those activist judges get a wild idea... I think what I've said earlier about this topic bears repeating: We do ourselves and our country a disservice when we talk to opponents of gay marriage politely. We would never come on these boards and have a polite conversation with someone who says that blacks are inferior and have no business with equal rights. We'd never tolerate someone who said Jews are filthy and they run the country. We'd rightly be outraged and appalled, and someone who said those kinds of things would likely be banned from LP. Can you imagine a lengthy thread with posts going back and forth about whether darker skin causes a lower IQ, or whether it makes men more sexually aggressive? We wouldn't be so tolerant as to participate in a discussion like that. This topic is, and should be, no different. We legitimize and give credence to the anti-gay marriage position when we have a conversation about it, as if it's a rational position to have. It's not. This is bigotry, plain and simple. This is one group of people foolishly, stupidly, and ignorantly believing they are better than another group of people. Then, rather than own their ignorance and bigotry, they turn around and blame "tradition" and "god" (which is precisely what racists in the 40s and 50s did). Enough is enough. It's really time for Americans to start relegating bigots to the same corners where they've always had to slink away to. They can either change their view of the world, as men like George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, and Robert Byrd had to do, or they can be pushed to the margins where they belong.
Originally Posted By mele Most people who are against gay marriage have some sort of religious reason for being so. This is a prime example of why more and more people are turning away from organized religion. Keep it up...organized religion becomes more obsolete everytime you talk about why someone else doesn't deserve the same rights you have. Please, keep it up. You just might be doing the world a favor by showing people why religion should be eliminated. Josh, I am willing to bet that most people in America would think that marrying a teenager is a questionable move but you don't see them trying to limit your right to do so. Statistically, over 50% of marriages end in divorce and I'm pretty sure it's higher for people who marry when very young. Would you be willing to limit your rights in this area, based on protecting the "sanctity of marriage"? It's unfortunate that so many people take for granted their own freedoms and are so quick to take someone else's away. May life treat you accordingly. :-(
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It's unfortunate that so many people take for granted their own freedoms and are so quick to take someone else's away.<< And those so willing to impose their will on others through legal maneuvering are also those to yell the loudest when something happens that they don't like - 10 Commandments in a courthouse, anyone? They feel absolutely nothing when they inflict great pain on others, but scream bloody murder if someone so much as treads on their toes. And it's still bigotry.
