Vote yes to Prop 8.......or at least donate.

[implacable44]

Natrually. Its an extreme radical opinion today that people of 2 different races should be allowed to marry. Or that we have civil rights in this country to begin with. I mean damn, the bible says a woman's role is to honor and obey her husband why the are we allowing them to vote?

Damn progressives tearing apart the fabric of our society.

Is that all the Good Book says about women ? or is it just a piece you choose to pull out and exploit ? Yeah -- the slippery slope Manny -- you whine for those who feel discriminated against .. well -- will you feel the same for those old guys who have a "natural desire" to be with 10 year old little boys or girls ? I mean it is natural to them - they were born this way and they cannot control it. Or how about that fellow out on the farm who has this natural desire to love his horse ? Can he be discriminated against -- are his civil liberties being tarnished ?

[Supergirl]

I would like anyone supporting Prop 8 to give me one way in which it affects you negatively to have same-sex couples be able to have equal access to marriage rights? One way it affects you negatively, please.

It doesn't. That's the point, BTW, in case you missed it. If anything, it will affect you positively because it could bring in more revenue (weddings are big money, folks) to your state, which could affect you positively. Maybe.

If it's just a moral superiority thing, well, get your morality out of my bedroom. It's no business of yours or anyone else's what people do behind closed doors, and who's to say that your morality is any more right than my morality? This is why we shouldn't be trying to legislate morality.

But marriage rights isn't about morality. It's about equal access to legal, civil rights. No one is compelling the Catholic Church, or Sarah Palin's wackjob evangelical church, to marry same-sex couples. It's their right not to. Just as it's the right of Reform Judaism, Recontructionist Judaism, the UCC church, the Unitarian church, and other religious branches to perform same-sex marriage. None of this has anything to do with the legal, civil right which is currently being denied to couples who happen to have the same genitalia. And yes, it's still being denied in Massachusetts and California, because it's being denied at the federal level.

[doobs]

Last time I checked no one is seeking to alter religious marriage one bit. That may be an ins ution that has been around for a long time, but government marriage is far from the same ins ution in any shape or form. Much of the problem is based upon one side of the disagreement refusing to acknowledge the difference between government marriage and marriage by the church. Equality is only ensured in one of those and its the only one where equality is being sought.

No, I know. But like it or not, marriage is a traditional relationship that precedes our country, and the states choose to recognize marriage, even though they're under no obligation to do so.

It is altering the ins ution, if only because it changes how people view the relationship. Because if the states choose to accord marriage a special status, by extending that status to gays, they're changing what that status means to traditionalists. The more permissive we are about marriage, the less special it becomes to many. It's kind of like it gets watered down. Surely, you have to admit that if we become too permissive, marriage is robbed of a great deal of its meaning.

Let me just reiterate, I'm in support of gay marriage. I just think: (1) it's bull that we rely on guys in black robes to enact their political preferences; and (2) not all opponents of gay marriage are bigots.

[MannyIsGod]

Is that all the Good Book says about women ? or is it just a piece you choose to pull out and exploit ? Yeah -- the slippery slope Manny -- you whine for those who feel discriminated against .. well -- will you feel the same for those old guys who have a "natural desire" to be with 10 year old little boys or girls ? I mean it is natural to them - they were born this way and they cannot control it. Or how about that fellow out on the farm who has this natural desire to love his horse ? Can he be discriminated against -- are his civil liberties being tarnished ?

Equating sexual marriage with pedophilia is a sure sign of a bigot.

[doobs]

Drawing the line is pretty easy, two non related consenting human adults.

Right. That's the line I'd draw. But at least I can acknowledge that that has to do with my own biases. That's discrimination, man.

Why not three non-related consenting human adults?

Why not two consenting human adults, regardless of whether or not they're related?

You have to come up with some justification for any exclusions. Can't you see that future generations may decide that polygamy is OK or that incest is OK? Does that make you or me bigoted idiots who should go themselves? I think not.

[MannyIsGod]

No, I know. But like it or not, marriage is a traditional relationship that precedes our country, and the states choose to recognize marriage, even though their under no obligation to do so.

It is altering the ins ution, if only because it changes how people view the relationship. Because if the states choose to accord marriage a special status, by extending that status to gays, they're changing what that status means to traditionalists. The more permissive we are about marriage, the less special it becomes to many. It's kind of like it gets watered down. Surely, you have to admit that if we become too permissive, marriage is robbed of a great deal of its meaning.

Let me just reiterate, I'm in support of gay marriage. I just think: (1) it's bull that we rely on guys in black robes to enact their political preferences; and (2) not all opponents of gay marriage are bigots.

Marriage has meaning still? Thats not hyperbole because the truth is that society has already greatly devalued marriage and thats evident in so many ways. I understand what your saying, but it simply doesn't carry much weight with me because the bottom line for me is that once government stepped into the marriage business pandora's box was opened.

Ideally government would not be in that business at all, but good luck getting that genie back in the bottle. Therefor you have to apply it equally and denying 2 people that right based on gender is definetly discrimination.

I realize that you don't like the judiciary of this country deciding this, but their jobs are to do so. Civil rights issues are fought in the courts and thats one of their main funcitons. Judicial activism or whatever the right wants to call it today is one of the greatest myths of all time in today's political world.

[MannyIsGod]

Right. That's the line I'd draw. But at least I can acknowledge that that has to do with my own biases. That's discrimination, man.

Why not three non-related consenting human adults?

Why not two consenting human adults, regardless of whether or not they're related?

You have to come up with some justification for any exclusions. Can't you see that future generations may decide that polygamy is OK or that incest is OK? Does that make you or me bigoted idiots who should go themselves? I think not.

I don't see a problem with 2 related consenting adults getting married and I don't have a problem with 3 people entering into a marriage either. I think its weird as and may point to psychological issues but it should not be the governments job to stop people from doing these things.

[FromWayDowntown]

Is that all the Good Book says about women ? or is it just a piece you choose to pull out and exploit ? Yeah -- the slippery slope Manny -- you whine for those who feel discriminated against .. well -- will you feel the same for those old guys who have a "natural desire" to be with 10 year old little boys or girls ? I mean it is natural to them - they were born this way and they cannot control it. Or how about that fellow out on the farm who has this natural desire to love his horse ? Can he be discriminated against -- are his civil liberties being tarnished ?

You're not talking about a slippery slope -- you're talking about a slide into absurdity.

Defining a marriage as between a man and a woman could, arguably, support the same slippery slope nonsense that you're spewing here. If the law allows a man to marry a woman, why not a child? or a dog? The line you're drawing is equally arbitrary -- it's just more palatable to you because it has some basis in Christian scripture and western tradition.

In truth, the protections that you're concerned about -- polygamy, minority, bestiality -- are all adequately ensured by laws concerning who can marry and whom they can marry. There's no need to change any of those laws in order to allow couples of the same sex to enter into cognizable legal unions. As far as I know, nobody is realistically arguing that any of those ancillary laws should be changed in any way.

This is simply a matter of denying a fundamental right, marriage, to people simply because of their gender (it's not even about sexuality; two heterosexual men couldn't marry each other if they chose to, either). Gender discrimination is generally subject to intermediate cons utional scrutiny, but it's getting harder and harder to identify an important governmental interest served by laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Tradition, as Manny appropriately points out, sometimes must give way to the needs of masses -- particularly in a pluralistic society.

[Spurminator]

I still don't see why government has to be involved in marriage at all.

[doobs]

Marriage has meaning still? Thats not hyperbole because the truth is that society has already greatly devalued marriage and thats evident in so many ways. I understand what your saying, but it simply doesn't carry much weight with me because the bottom line for me is that once government stepped into the marriage business pandora's box was opened.

Ideally government would not be in that business at all, but good luck getting that genie back in the bottle. Therefor you have to apply it equally and denying 2 people that right based on gender is definetly discrimination.

I realize that you don't like the judiciary of this country deciding this, but their jobs are to do so. Civil rights issues are fought in the courts and thats one of their main funcitons. Judicial activism or whatever the right wants to call it today is one of the greatest myths of all time in today's political world.

I don't want to get sidetracked here, but I only dislike what the judiciary does in this area precisely because I don't think it's their job. And when the government recognizes a relationship like marriage and accords it certain rights and responsibilities, it isn't the government's duty to apply it "equally"--or at least in the sense that most people understand the word. The government's duty is to apply it without violating equal protection. That's a little different. You don't have to let 10 year olds get married. Right?

I don't see a problem with 2 related consenting adults getting married and I don't have a problem with 3 people entering into a marriage either. I think its weird as and may point to psychological issues but it should not be the governments job to stop people from doing these things.

That's beside the point. Look, some people opposed to gay marriage are hateful bigots, but some aren't. I think it's unfair how some supporters of gay marriage can just dismiss opponents as bigoted idiots who can themselves.

[implacable44]

Equating sexual marriage with pedophilia is a sure sign of a bigot.

calling someone on a message board a bigot is the sure sign of an ignorant bigot.

[implacable44]

I would like anyone supporting Prop 8 to give me one way in which it affects you negatively to have same-sex couples be able to have equal access to marriage rights? One way it affects you negatively, please.

It doesn't. That's the point, BTW, in case you missed it. If anything, it will affect you positively because it could bring in more revenue (weddings are big money, folks) to your state, which could affect you positively. Maybe.

If it's just a moral superiority thing, well, get your morality out of my bedroom. It's no business of yours or anyone else's what people do behind closed doors, and who's to say that your morality is any more right than my morality? This is why we shouldn't be trying to legislate morality.

But marriage rights isn't about morality. It's about equal access to legal, civil rights. No one is compelling the Catholic Church, or Sarah Palin's wackjob evangelical church, to marry same-sex couples. It's their right not to. Just as it's the right of Reform Judaism, Recontructionist Judaism, the UCC church, the Unitarian church, and other religious branches to perform same-sex marriage. None of this has anything to do with the legal, civil right which is currently being denied to couples who happen to have the same genitalia. And yes, it's still being denied in Massachusetts and California, because it's being denied at the federal level.

I don't care what you do in your bedroom... I am not in favor of changing the definition of marraige

[MannyIsGod]

I don't want to get sidetracked here, but I only dislike what the judiciary does in this area precisely because I don't think it's their job. And when the government recognizes a relationship like marriage and accords it certain rights and responsibilities, it isn't the government's duty to apply it "equally"--or at least in the sense that most people understand the word. The government's duty is to apply it without violating equal protection. That's a little different. You don't have to let 10 year olds get married. Right?



That's beside the point. Look, some people opposed to gay marriage are hateful bigots, but some aren't. I think it's unfair how some supporters of gay marriage can just dismiss opponents as bigoted idiots who can themselves.

The judiciary's job - or one of their jobs - is to ensure that the law of the land is abiding with the state (or federal) cons utions. When lower laws violate those do ents, the judiciary is obligated to act; whether or not it has to do with marriage is irrelevant. This is a matter of fact and not opinion.

Obviously not everyone opposing gay marriage is a bigot. That should go without saying.

[FromWayDowntown]

I still don't see why government has to be involved in marriage at all.

I think there have to be some laws concerning marriage to ensure that the sort of slippery slope arguments that implausible has set out are avoided. It probably is a worthwhile thing to ensure that adults aren't marrying young children or to prohibit people who are blood relatives from marrying one another.

[implacable44]

Equating sexual marriage with pedophilia is a sure sign of a bigot.

or dropping attacks against Christians or people with a different moral compass than you is a sure sign of a bigot ....

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't want to get sidetracked here, but I only dislike what the judiciary does in this area precisely because I don't think it's their job. And when the government recognizes a relationship like marriage and accords it certain rights and responsibilities, it isn't the government's duty to apply it "equally"--or at least in the sense that most people understand the word. The government's duty is to apply it without violating equal protection. That's a little different. You don't have to let 10 year olds get married. Right?

Sure. What important governmental interest is served by such gender-based discrimination?

[implacable44]

I think there have to be some laws concerning marriage to ensure that the sort of slippery slope arguments that implausible has set out are avoided. It probably is a worthwhile thing to ensure that adults aren't marrying young children or to prohibit people who are blood relatives from marrying one another.

as soon as you open the doors -- everyone will be crying discriination for their particular fetish -- little boy -- animals - book drelatives - little girls and the list goes on and on and on

[doobs]

The judiciary's job - or one of their jobs - is to ensure that the law of the land is abiding with the state (or federal) cons utions. When lower laws violate those do ents, the judiciary is obligated to act; whether or not it has to do with marriage is irrelevant. This is a matter of fact and not opinion.

Obviously not everyone opposing gay marriage is a bigot. That should go without saying.

The judiciary's job is interpret the law. And yes, the judiciary is obligated to act from time to time. But what you said doesn't change anything. From Brown v. Board of Education, to Roe v. Wade, to Lawrence v. Texas, the judiciary has been "making it up as it goes along" when it comes to Equal Protection or Substantive Due Process. It's amazing, really, when you read the text of the 14th Amendment and realize the body of cons utional law that has resulted from those simple, vague words. The judiciary is a political body now, and it makes me sick.

[FromWayDowntown]

as soon as you open the doors -- everyone will be crying discriination for their particular fetish -- little boy -- animals - book drelatives - little girls and the list goes on and on and on

Why doesn't defining marriage as an ins ution between a man and a woman do exactly the same thing? There's nothing, short of some arbitrary attachment to history and tradition and a deep-seeded distaste for sexuals, to support that kind of leap.

[MannyIsGod]

The judiciary's job is interpret the law. And yes, the judiciary is obligated to act from time to time. But what you said doesn't change anything. From Brown v. Board of Education, to Roe v. Wade, to Lawrence v. Texas, the judiciary has been "making it up as it goes along" when it comes to Equal Protection or Substantive Due Process. It's amazing, really, when you read the text of the 14th Amendment and realize the body of cons utional law that has resulted from those simple, vague words. The judiciary is a political body now, and it makes me sick.

NOW? The judiciary has always been political. Its completely unreasonable to expect the cons ution to lay out what to do in every single possible case. They have to interpret meanings. Its just the way things are.

I understand if you don't like it even if I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't understand the romanticizing of a mythical judiciary who didn't have to do the things today's judges have to do or interpret the laws the best they can. They've always been political in that sense and there's a reason for their life long appointments.

[FromWayDowntown]

The judiciary's job is interpret the law. And yes, the judiciary is obligated to act from time to time. But what you said doesn't change anything. From Brown v. Board of Education, to Roe v. Wade, to Lawrence v. Texas, the judiciary has been "making it up as it goes along" when it comes to Equal Protection or Substantive Due Process. It's amazing, really, when you read the text of the 14th Amendment and realize the body of cons utional law that has resulted from those simple, vague words. The judiciary is a political body now, and it makes me sick.

So when the lawmakers in a state doesn't afford equal protection of the laws to its citizens, where would you suggest that the disenfranchised citizens turn?

It's not as if the courts are making equal protection cases out of wholecloth. There is a cons utional provision that explicitly says that citizens of the states shall be afforded equal protection of the law. When the families of children in Kansas brought their case in Brown, it was abundantly clear that there was no such thing as separate but equal facilities for education in that state (and many others). The families challenged the law in courts -- most of which rejected their contentions. The Supreme Court, however, recognized that if equal protection was to mean anything, it couldn't mean separate but unequal. It also decided, based on existing social science data, that there was no way to ensure separate but equal anything. As such, it concluded that the Kansas law violated the Equal Protection Clause and struck it down. If the Court hadn't decided that case, we might still live in a world where public education is provided separately and unequally, which strip the meaning away from the Equal Protection Clause. Nothing about Brown is making it up anymore than Plessy or Strauder or Wick Yo before it was "making it up" as the Court went along

Personally, I don't think that there can be an equal protection jurisprudence without a coordinate recognition of the fact that people have substantive due process rights.

[romad_20]

as soon as you open the doors -- everyone will be crying discriination for their particular fetish -- little boy -- animals - book drelatives - little girls and the list goes on and on and on

Little boys, animals, and little girls are not consenting adults. How hard is this to understand?

[Spurminator]

I think there have to be some laws concerning marriage to ensure that the sort of slippery slope arguments that implausible has set out are avoided. It probably is a worthwhile thing to ensure that adults aren't marrying young children or to prohibit people who are blood relatives from marrying one another.

I think those laws would have more to do with the sexual nature of the relationship than the idea of simply calling a child, or your daughter, your "wife," etc.

[MannyIsGod]

So when the lawmakers in a state doesn't afford equal protection of the laws to its citizens, where would you suggest that the disenfranchised citizens turn?

It's not as if the courts are making equal protection cases out of wholecloth. There is a cons utional provision that explicitly says that citizens of the states shall be afforded equal protection of the law. When the families of children in Kansas brought their case in Brown, it was abundantly clear that there was no such thing as separate but equal facilities for education in that state (and many others). The families challenged the law in courts -- most of which rejected their contentions. The Supreme Court, however, recognized that if equal protection was to mean anything, it couldn't mean separate but unequal. It also decided, based on existing social science data, that there was no way to ensure separate but equal anything. As such, it concluded that the Kansas law violated the Equal Protection Clause and struck it down. If the Court hadn't decided that case, we might still live in a world where public education is provided separately and unequally, which strip the meaning away from the Equal Protection Clause.

Personally, I don't think that there can be an equal protection jurisprudence without a coordinate recognition of the fact that people have substantive due process rights.

This is what happens when you get so much talk of "legislating for the bench". It seems that every time someone sees a ruling they disagree with they assume the judge was working with a specific agenda and combing the laws to find a way to rule the way they wish to achieve their goal.

I guess in this sense I'm annoyed that the judiciary has been politicized too. But lets be clear on who is playing politics here because its not the judiciary.

[MannyIsGod]

Little boys, animals, and little girls are not consenting adults. How hard is this to understand?

Its not about understanding, its about making an indefensible position defensible.