Dear Marriage Supporter,
What a week it's been!
As you know, it started with a resounding 22-point victory in North Carolina, which became the thirty-first state to amend their constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
This is a BIG victory! As the first of five states likely to vote on marriage this year, North Carolina set the tone and gives the defenders of traditional marriage some significant momentum.
Momentum we will need—because the day after the vote in NC, President Obama officially came out endorsing same-sex marriage.
That's why I launched Stand for Marriage America, a campaign to raise $100,000 by midnight tonight to support the four state campaigns defending marriage at the ballot box this November: Washington State, Maryland, Maine and Minnesota.
Please make a generous donation of $50, $100, $500 or even $1000 if you are able right away.
NOM will match dollar-for-dollar every donation up to $100,000, so each state campaign could receive an immediate infusion of $50,000!
Maryland and Washington only have a few weeks left to gather the signatures needed to qualify the referendum for the November ballot and both of them could really use the financial boost to ensure they have more than enough ballots signed (because the other side will undoubtedly challenge the validity of tens of thousands of our signatures) by the upcoming deadline.
It's critical that each of these four campaigns receive the financial support they need to counter the same-sex marriage lobby's propaganda and lies.
In the next year to year-and-a-half, the U.S. Supreme Court will likely hear cases pertaining to Proposition 8 and DOMA which will have incredible implications for the future of marriage in America.
And the Supreme Court will be hesitant to overturn the unanimous verdict of 35 out of 35 states voting to protect marriage. But a loss in any one eliminates that unanimity and puts the laws defending marriage in jeopardy across the nation.
Please consider making a gift right now to support the Stand for Marriage America effort.
Your gift of $50 will become $100—$25 for each state effort. $100 becomes $200—$50 to defend marriage in each state. And $500 becomes $1,000—$250 to support efforts to protect marriage in Washington State, Maryland, Maine and Minnesota.
Thank you so much for supporting marriage!
Contributions or gifts to Minnesota for Marriage, Protect Marriage Maine, Maryland Marriage Alliance - No on 6, and Preserve Marriage Washington are not tax deductible.
MN - PAID ADVERTISEMENT: Prepared and paid for by the Minnesota for Marriage committee, 2355 Fairview Ave N, Box 301, Roseville, MN 55113, in support of the marriage protection amendment.
WA - Paid for by Preserve Marriage Washington, 16212 Bothell-Everett Highway, Ste. F, #276, Mill Creek, Washington 98012.
MD - Maryland Marriage Alliance - No on 6, Brian Duggan, Treasurer.
224 Comments
Protect marriage from what? Many speeches are made on this, zero facts are given.
"[O]ur Supreme Court has time and time again, and in an axiomatic fashion, expressed the state’s interests in marriage as: children, their formation, and the building up of a society of citizens well-prepared for self-government. In the process of recognizing various rights claimed by parents respecting their children, the Court has further observed that to the extent parents have such rights, it is because they have duties toward children. Those who demand that the state recognize, as marriage, partnerships of two persons of the same sex, ignore or deny the long line of Supreme Court decisions affirming the links between the state’s interests in marriage and child-welfare and social health. Their insistence, however, that marriage is about the individual self, seeking satisfaction respecting matters related to sex, romance, and parenting, is not new to family law. Same-sex marriage proponents are only the most recent in a long line of voices urging American society to divorce children from marriage, and to vault adults’ interests over children’s needs."
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4397
"Same-sex marriage proponents are only the most recent in a long line of voices urging American society to divorce children from marriage, and to vault adults’ interests over children’s needs."
Again, no facts, unless you count made up ones. Try using this line in front if a judge, especially without anything to back it up.
@DaughterofEve,
Many heterosexual couples get married with no intention of ever having children, even if they are capable of doing so. Isn't that also putting adults' interests over children's needs?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-11/USA-TODAYGallup-poll-Obama-gay-marriage/54905424/1
Poll: 51% of Americans agree with Obama's endorsement of gay marriage.
Pete (writes)
"Again, no facts, unless you count made up ones. Try using this line in front if a judge, especially without anything to back it up."
Peter, what "facts" exactly are you looking for? If we are in the realm of the social sciences and the like, you realize your not going to get a perfect cause = effect demonstration that works out like a mathmatical formula..
It would be unfair and demegogic for you to expect such a simplistic causal link..
As far as "going in front of a Judge" is concerned.. the burden of proof is not on defenders of marriage to demonstrate what will happen once same-sex "marriage" is adopted long enough for its effects to be felt.
No the burden of proof is properly on the innovators (your side).. That burden however is not to disprove our beliefs about what it will do to society...like your querry that would be overburdensome & unfair.
No..the burden of proof IS on your side, and the burden is to show that keeping the traditional definition of marriage lacks ANY "rational basis"
Now the dissent in Goodridge talked about how this test is a "yawning chasm" that your side cannot get across...
So far the mutiple courts that have ruled your way have failed to get across this chasm..We can only hope SCOTUS agree's
The reason I oppose redefining marriage is because I have not been
presented with a good-enough reason to do so.
Could it be that the prevailing legal definition is at odds with the
social understanding? While that could be the case in certain times
and places, it was not the case in North Carolina. The people of North
Carolina understand marriage to be an opposite-sex union. In over
thirty states the people voted to define marriage, and that vote is a
clear indicator of the social understanding of marriage.
Is there any difference between same-sex and opposite-sex unions?
The answer is yes. There are basic biological differences between men
and women. It is because of these differences that we have different
words for men and women. In addition, several dating blogs highlighted
the different dynamics in human pair bonding between men and women.
And of course, unintentional pregnancies can happen with opposite-sex
couples without outside intervention, while it can never happen with
same-sex couples, pairs of brothers, or trios of sisters. Therefore,
the dynamics of same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions are different.
This is sufficient reason to use different names for same-sex unions
and opposite-sex unions.
To be sure, there are some similarities. Canals and highways have
similarities too, in that they are both used for transportation across
land, and yet they are different. Using different names to describe
different things- whether marriages and same-sex unions, canals and
highways- is not immoral and not oppression.
Can gay couples raise children? To the same extent that pairs of
brothers and trios of sisters can raise children. Society has
recognized alternate arrangements of raising children. Indeed,
monasteries in medieval Europe would often raise orphans. No doubt
what the monks and nuns did were admirable. Most people at the time
were certain the monks and nuns in those monasteries would give all
for each other, and for the orphans they raised. And yet, while
society admired what they did, they were not considered the same as
married couples, nor afforded the same social recognition. Pairs of brothers and trios of sisters were not considered married, even if
they raised children. Why should same-sex couples be considered
married merely because they raise children?
Is it immoral to define marriage as between one man and one woman?
If something is morally wrong, it is morally wrong always. And yet,
our secular moral traditions lends no support to the idea that it is immoral to define marriage as between one man and one woman. No
writing or publication dating from the Reformation, Enlightenment,
American Revolution, or American Civil War even hints so.
Does the definition of marriage oppress homosexuals? Is it the only
possible reason for such a definition? The very first dictionary I
read, the 1981 World Book Dictionary, defines marriage as “the act or
fact of living together as husband and wife; relations between husband
and wife; married life; wedlock. Perhaps this line of argument would
have some force if the word marriage was invented in 1981 by
heterosexuals to oppress homosexuals. But this definition clearly
predates 1981. John Locke, one of the Enlightenment philosophers,
wrote that marriage was “made by a voluntary compact between man and
woman.” Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government § 78 (1690) One
hundred seventy-eight years alter, a leading law dictionary was
published affirming this definition. John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary
Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States
105 (1868) Indeed, the concept of sexual orientation itself did not
exist until the late 19th century. See J. Katz, The Invention of
Heterosexuality 10 (1995); J.
D’Emilio & E. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in
America 121 (2d ed. 1997) (“The modern terms homosexuality and
heterosexuality do not apply to an era that had not yet articulated
these distinctions“), cited in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 at
568-569 (2003) Clearly, the purpose of marriage was not to oppress
homosexuals, any more than its purpose was to oppress airline pilots.
And, of course, the nomenclature used to describe same-sex unions is
distinct from the issue of how to treat people in same-sex unions.
After all, women were not oppressed merely by being called women instead of men, but by denying them property rights, the right to vote, etc.
See these videos.
http://tinyurl.com/82cy375
http://tinyurl.com/7rmo4eo
Pete (writes)
"Again, no facts, unless you count made up ones. Try using this line in front if a judge, especially without anything to back it up."
Peter, what "facts" exactly are you looking for? If we are in the realm of the social sciences and the like, you realize your not going to get a perfect cause = effect demonstration that works out like a mathmatical formula..
It would be unfair and demegogic for you to expect such a simplistic causal link..
Pete (writes)
"Again, no facts, unless you count made up ones. Try using this line in front if a judge, especially without anything to back it up."
As far as "going in front of a Judge" is concerned.. the burden of proof is not on defenders of marriage to demonstrate what will happen once same-sex "marriage" is adopted long enough for its effects to be felt.
No the burden of proof is properly on the innovators (your side).. That burden however is not to disprove our beliefs about what it will do to society...like your querry that would be overburdensome & unfair.
No..the burden of proof IS on your side, and the burden is to show that keeping the traditional definition of marriage lacks ANY "rational basis"
Now the dissent in Goodridge talked about how this test is a "yawning chasm" that your side cannot get across...
So far the mutiple courts that have ruled your way have failed to get across this chasm..We can only hope SCOTUS agree's
What facts am I looking for? Well your claims need to be based in something real.
Fitz, are, you admitting that your side is making false claim that SSM hurts anyone's marriage.
Michael E. still no facts in your looooog post of what marriage needs to be protected from. This is yet another example where you tend to pontificate, but bring no real substantial argument to the table. This diatribe would have you tossed out of court.
Pete (writes)
"What facts am I looking for? Well your claims need to be based in something real." - "Fitz, are, you admitting that your side is making false claim that SSM hurts anyone's marriage."
#1. What do you mean by "something real"
#2. No - to my knowledege my side has not made any "false claims"
#3. You write "SSM hurts anyone's marriage"
I think I may see your problem... You use the term "anyones" marriage. Anyone is singular. You seem to be asking your opposition to "prove" how changing the definition of marriage will effect a specific person marriage.
This is called the "macro to micro ellision" in legal circles.
You are asking your adveesary to "prove" how a macro change (something that effect the whole society) will effect a micro enviroment (a specific persons marriage).
No wonder your not getting answers you find satisfactory...your asking a loaded question.
Is that the problem?
Yes, Fitz, your claims that SSM will hurt traditional marriage needs to backed up with something real, you know, facts. We happen to know that your (collectively) motivation is your anti-gay stance.
And yes, Fitz, even the courts want to know where this fallacy comes from.
Pete (writes)
"This diatribe would have you tossed out of court."
Not at all.. As an Attorney I can attest that such arguments are regularly submitted in both trial court and appellate briefs.
I dont know if you have any real expierience in the law, but it seems like your using such statements to disqualify arguments because your looking for something more concrete.
As I expalined above, legal arguments of this nature dont lend themselves to discreet cause = effect arguments of a mathmatical nature.
Neither Judges nor fair minded advocates on either side expect such arguments in the first place.
Now...
What kind of "proof" are you really looking for?
Pete (writes)
"Yes, Fitz, your claims that SSM will hurt traditional marriage needs to backed up with something real, you know, facts."
What kinds of (what you call) "facts" do you expect us to find.. you realize (again) that at the very best we are in the realm of social science here... Also, you realize your asking for us to produce evidence of the result of an experiment that hasent been run on a large scale yet in this country?
Pete (writes)
"We happen to know that your (collectively) motivation is your anti-gay stance."
Who's "we" & Were are the "facts" to prove that we are "(collectively) motivation is your anti-gay stance."
Pete (writes)
And yes, Fitz, even the courts want to know where this fallacy comes from."
What "fallacy" specifically are you refering to?
What "courts" want to know this?
As far as my knowledge extends the burden of proof is on your side to prove that the traditional definition of marriage lacks any "rational basis" to a "ligitimante state interest".
Now - as a matter of FACT... thats the burden of proof we are operating under. So if your really looking for FACTS...then theirs one.
Courts (to my knowledge) dont want to know - "where this fallacy comes from."
Rather they want your attorneys to prove that their is no "rational basis" for the traditional definition of marriage.
You can look that FACT up if you like... It is indeed the standard of proof.
As to your other querry... I'm still trying to figure out what kind of arguments, facts, or proof your really looking for?
"Well your claims need to be based in something real"
The laws of nature dictate that procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one women pairings as vindicated in no less than (3) SCOTUS findings dating back to 1853 rendering these findings as real as it gets – never mind the obviousness of it all. The argument of opposite gender partners who fail to procreate has been dismissed as nothing more than a "Theoretical Abnormality" by the courts.
The marriage corruption argument in defense of their demands for a new right amounts to nothing more than "Give me what I want; waaaaaaa,"
Fitz, how do you know that SSM will harm traditional marriage? You have to have SOME factual evidence to base it on, otherwise it's pure fallacy.
I've made myself clear, you can knockoff the NOM logic and speaking around me.
Randy,
Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965
Please stay current.
Pete:
How can you know that SSM won't harm marriage?
Short of an ability to foretell the future, I suggest you cannot know this.
The law, concerning itself with facts instead of prognostications, situates the matter in terms os a rational basis.
The burden of proof, as Fitz correctly and repeatedly notes, is on the innovators.
You will lose at SCOTUS and I think it won't be as close as 5-4.
Pete:
How can you know that SSM won't harm marriage?
Short of an ability to foretell the future, I suggest you cannot know this.
The law, concerning itself with facts instead of prognostications, situates the matter in terms os a rational basis.
The burden of proof, as Fitz correctly and repeatedly notes, is on the innovators.
Fitz, would it be safe to say that "proof" is for mathematics, and "evidence" is for the "soft sciences?"
Hey, Pete, don't feel bad if logic is challenging. I remember taking a college philosophy class that covered some logic. "If A, then B. If not A, then not B." Etc. It was a lot like math.
"Again, no facts, unless you count made up ones. Try using this line in front if a judge, especially without anything to back it up."
Pete, you're funny. If you'd read the article, you'd know those arguments were used in front of several judges.
Pete (writes)
"Fitz, how do you know that SSM will harm traditional marriage? You have to have SOME factual evidence to base it on, otherwise it's pure fallacy.+"
Oh -we have plently of factual evidence.. Im just wondering wich kind... your rather imfamous at changing the goal posts
Pete (writes)
"I've made myself clear, you can knockoff the NOM logic and speaking around me"
There's no such thing as NOM logic...logic is logic..
& I'm not so much speaking around you but rather above you.
Pete (writes)
"Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965. Please stay current."
You have made two errors here
#1. No one ever said procreation is a REQUIRMENT of marriage (i.e. - straw man argument)
#2. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 asserts nothing of the sort. It is the case saying that you have a right to contraceptive use as part of the privacy right inherent in the "marriage bed".
As such it is a case cited by our side linking the fundemental right to marriage expressley with procreation and the "right to form a family"
As such it is one of the Six Supreme Court precedents that are controlling on marriage: they include Baker v Nelson (1973) Turner v. Safley, (1987) Zablocki v. Redhail, (1978); Loving v. Virginia, (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942)
A full half directly dealing with procreation.
Pete (writes)
"Fitz, how do you know that SSM will harm traditional marriage? You have to have SOME factual evidence to base it on, otherwise it's pure fallacy.+"
Oh -we have plently of factual evidence.. Im just wondering wich kind... your rather imfamous at changing the goal posts
Pete (writes)
"I've made myself clear, you can knockoff the NOM logic and speaking around me"
There's no such thing as NOM logic...logic is logic..
& I'm not so much speaking around you but rather above you.
Pete (writes)
"Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965. Please stay current."
You have made two errors here.
#1. No one ever said procreation is a REQUIRMENT of marriage (i.e. - straw man argument)
#2. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 asserts nothing of the sort. It is the case saying that you have a right to contraceptive use as part of the privacy right inherent in the "marriage bed".
As such it is a case cited by our side linking the fundemental right to marriage expressley with procreation and the "right to form a family"
As such it is one of the Six Supreme Court precedents that are controlling on marriage: they include Baker v Nelson (1973) Turner v. Safley, (1987) Zablocki v. Redhail, (1978); Loving v. Virginia, (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942)
A full half directly dealing with procreation.
Pete (writes)
"Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965. Please stay current."
You have made two errors here
#1. No one ever said procreation is a REQUIRMENT of marriage (i.e. - straw man argument)
#2. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 asserts nothing of the sort. It is the case saying that you have a right to contraceptive use as part of the privacy right inherent in the "marriage bed".
As such it is a case cited by our side linking the fundemental right to marriage expressley with procreation and the "right to form a family"
As such it is one of the Six Supreme Court precedents that are controlling on marriage: they include Baker v Nelson (1973) Turner v. Safley, (1987) Zablocki v. Redhail, (1978); Loving v. Virginia, (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942)
A full half directly dealing with procreation.
Katie said, "Many heterosexual couples get married with no intention of ever having children, even if they are capable of doing so. Isn't that also putting adults' interests over children's needs?"
Are you suggesting children that don't exist have needs?
Consider that a married man and woman who have no intentions of having children can become unintentionally pregnant, or, they can change their minds about having kids an procreate, or they can change their minds about having children and adopt, or, they might be called upon to take over parenting for a niece or nephew whose parents are no longer able to do so, etc. Either way, that married man and woman are in a position to offer a child both a mother and father.
There is no mandate to procreate; the govt. supports marriage because should procreation occur between a man and woman, their marriage to each other significantly raises the odds the child will receive the car he/she needs, and that the adults will take full responsible for the sexual behavior that produced the child in the first place.
"Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965
Please stay current."
Please stay relevant.
How does your statement justify the neutering of marriage?
#22 oops--"care" not "car," though I know many a teenager who think a car is requisite for care. Haha!
"There is no mandate to procreate"
And here is what I am getting at. One of the main arguments against same-sex marriage is that same-sex couples cannot procreate. But if procreation is not a requirement for marriage, then this argument doesn't really make sense.
Although it is not a requirement to procreate, it is still an incentive to procreate. That is why married people get the benefits that single people do not get. These benefits were justified as incentives to procreate. So this argument makes perfect sense.
Katie, may I please suggest a careful study of this article, to answer your question? It's a great article, and very thorough.
http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/02/20/traditional-family-law-connecting-marriage-with-children/
Always did like the name "Katie."
Pete (writes)
"Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965. Please stay current."
You have made two errors here..
#1. No one ever said "procreation is a REQUIRMENT of marriage" (i.e. - straw man argument)
#2. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 asserts nothing of the sort. It is the case saying that you have a right to contraceptive use as part of the privacy right inherent in the "marriage bed".
As such it is a case cited by our side linking the fundemental right to marriage expressley with procreation and the "right to form a family"
As such it is one of the Six Supreme Court precedents that are controlling on marriage: they include Baker v Nelson (1973) Turner v. Safley, (1987) Zablocki v. Redhail, (1978); Loving v. Virginia, (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942)
A full half directly dealing with procreation
Fitz and Michael, excellence posts. As soon as Pete made his first comment, I was thinking about warning marriage supporters not to bother with him. He wouldn’t know what a “fact” is if one hit him in the face; he simply likes to use the word. There are *some* SSMers who would meaningfully engage your stellar comments; but you can’t win an argument with an idiot.
And great points about the “evidence” demand, Fitz. Even anti-Prop 8 expert witness Nancy Cott said that ssm is a watershed change and it’s impossible to predict all of its consequences. But like you said, we don’t have to. The burden is on those challenging the law to demonstrate that it lacks a rational basis, which is hard to do. We don’t have to prove harm from ssm any more than we’d have to prove how polygamy, incest, or any other change to marriage would harm it.
I would not want to be married in a state that allow gay marriage the meaning would be the same changes in paperwork. Incest marriage Plural marriage Gay education Genderless restrooms
A quote for Katie, from the article referenced (worth a read in its entirety)
"The state’s interest in linking procreation with marriage is also shown by the history of laws discouraging sexual intimacy and procreation between the unmarried, while protecting it between the married. Today, laws punishing adultery, fornication, or cohabitation rarely exist or are enforced. Still, even in the 1965 Supreme Court decision granting married persons the constitutional right to access birth control, a concurring opinion could observe: “It should be said of the Court’s holding today that it in no way interferes with a State’s proper regulation of sexual promiscuity or misconduct. . . . But the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which always and in every age it has fostered and protected” (Griswold v. Connecticut)."
And, for all you conservatives and independents, "As recently as 1983, in the single father’s rights case Lehr v. Robertson, the Court even more explicitly stated that “the Court has emphasized the paramount interest in the welfare of children and has noted that the rights of the parents are a counterpart of the responsibilities they have assumed.” It furthermore linked marriage and marital parenting with facilitating citizens’ ability to self-govern. Refusing to treat a single father identically to a married father in terms of rights respecting the child, it wrote that “marriage has played a critical role … in developing the decentralized structure of our democratic society. In recognition of that role, and as part of their general overarching concern for serving the best interests of children, state laws almost universally express an appropriate preference for the formal family.”
from above mentioned link/article
You'll notice sexual orientation/gay political identity are non-issues....
Really, Ash? So you are a part of the delusion where you can conjure up such an accusation but feel like you don't have to explain it?
So if it's impossible to predict as Nancy Cott mentions, the why do you insist it's true?
NOM-logic away. No wonder you're losing in court.
Poor Pete.
Let's deconstruct this gem:
"So if it's impossible to predict as Nancy Cott mentions, the why do you insist it's true?"
Ummm......Pete.
We don't have to prove anything true by employing some sort of crystal ball or perhaps a Ouija Board, the study of the entrails of a chicken, or a gay "marriage" poll.
We merely have to show that there exists a rational basis upon which to preserve marriage as it has been understood since the foundation of the American Republic.
Hope this helps.
Well then, Rick, the claim that SSM will hurt traditional marriage is a falicy by your example.
Thanks.
Pete:
Your logic is.........well.
Inexpressible, is the word I would choose
"Procreation is not a requirement for marriage."
Procreation is not a prerequisite for marriage because it is common knowledge that children are a normal result of sexual intercourse. The government doesn't have to involve itself with the intention or ability of particular man/woman couples for procreation to be a central purpose of marriage. Simply requiring the two sexes be present is sufficient.
"Inexpressable" is definitely the term, Rick. Your stating of the fact that we don't have to provide proof of harm is Pete's evidence that ssm won't harm marriage.
I commend your efforts in trying to break this down for Pete.
Is it possible that how NOMulans see things could be totally backward. Is that something that any of you would even come close to consider? You want us to prove that there should be a reason to allow two consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation to have a legal document. There is nothing here to prove and if you think there is, something is seriously amiss. You want us to prove something that there is no logical, rational, observable, American, humane, decent, caring, compassionate, intelligent, critical thinking reason for. How do you do that? If you were pro-SSM, how would you do that? If you had to present our case, how would you do that?
Since it has been made perfectly clear that the anti's are far better knowlegdable on all things to do with religion, laws, marriage, science, homosexuality, reality, etc., etc., how would you all present our case. If you had to represent us in a court of law, how would you prove our case, since you have all the anwers, obviously?
Pete (writes)
"Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965. Please stay current."
You have made two errors here
#1. No one ever said procreation is a REQUIRMENT of marriage (i.e. - straw man argument)
#2. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 asserts nothing of the sort. It is the case saying that you have a right to contraceptive use as part of the privacy right inherent in the "marriage bed".
As such it is a case cited by our side linking the fundemental right to marriage expressley with procreation and the "right to form a family"
As such it is one of the Six Supreme Court precedents that are controlling on marriage: they include Baker v Nelson, Turner v. Safley, Zablocki v. Redhail, Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut, Skinner v. Oklahoma,
A full half directly dealing with procreation.
Pete wrote:
"Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965
Please stay current."
Baker v. Evans 1972; looks to me like you are seven years past your prime grandpa.
http://www.staged.com/video?v=x4u
Pete (writes)
"Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965. Please stay current."
You have made two errors here.
#1. No one ever said procreation is a REQUIRMENT of marriage (i.e. - straw man argument)
#2. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 asserts nothing of the sort. It is the case saying that you have a right to contraceptive use as part of the privacy right inherent in the "marriage bed".
As such it is a case cited by our side linking the fundemental right to marriage expressley with procreation and the "right to form a family"
As such it is one of the Six Supreme Court precedents that are controlling on marriage: they include Baker v Nelson (1973) Turner v. Safley, (1987) Zablocki v. Redhail, (1978); Loving v. Virginia, (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942)
A full half directly dealing with procreation.
Pete (writes)
"Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965. Please stay current."
You have made two errors here
#1. No one ever said procreation is a "requirment" of marriage (i.e. - straw man argument)
#2. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 asserts nothing of the sort. It is the case saying that you have a right to contraceptive use as part of the privacy right inherent in the "marriage bed".
As such it is a case cited by our side linking the fundemental right to marriage expressley with procreation and the "right to form a family"
As such it is one of the Six Supreme Court precedents that are controlling on marriage: they include Baker v Nelson (1973) Turner v. Safley, (1987) Zablocki v. Redhail, (1978); Loving v. Virginia, (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942)
A full half directly dealing with procreation.
"Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965. Please stay current."
You have made two errors here
#1. No one ever said procreation is a REQUIRMENT of marriage (i.e. - straw man argument)
#2. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 asserts nothing of the sort. It is the case saying that you have a right to contraceptive use as part of the privacy right inherent in the "marriage bed".
As such it is a case cited by our side linking the fundemental right to marriage expressley with procreation and the "right to form a family"
As such it is one of the Six Supreme Court precedents that are controlling on marriage: they include Baker v Nelson (1973) Turner v. Safley, (1987) Zablocki v. Redhail, (1978); Loving v. Virginia, (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942)
A full half directly dealing with procreation.
Eliasasm, the pro SSM proponents don't have a case. :/
Pete (writes)
"Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965. Please stay current."
You have made two errors here- No one ever said procreation is a REQUIRMENT of marriage (i.e. - straw man argument)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 asserts nothing of the sort. It is the case saying that you have a right to contraceptive use as part of the privacy right inherent in the "marriage bed".
As such it is a case cited by our side linking the fundemental right to marriage expressley with procreation and the "right to form a family"
As such it is one of the Six Supreme Court precedents that are controlling on marriage: they include Baker v Nelson (1973) Turner v. Safley, (1987) Zablocki v. Redhail, (1978); Loving v. Virginia, (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942)
A full half directly dealing with procreation.
eliasasm
The tatical & stratigic mistake (in my estimation) that was made was going for the fundemental insitution of marriage to begin with.
They used a court based strategey to redefine a fundemental consitutional right because so many law proffesors are radicals from the 60's and court centric strategies have been so succesfull in the past.
The better route would be to have requested forms of civil unions on a State by State basis. Not to look as if they wanted a sharp stick of anti-discrimination law to poke at people who dont roll-over for their sexual ideology.
The american people are tolerant and generally broad minded. As such they are genuinly more concerned with the initution of marriage than with gay "rights".
Why, elias, we would simply point to the fact that marriage has, for as far back as human history extends, been universally recognized as the unique long term bond between male and female, from which union children commonly result and within which union they are best nurtured.
We would then point out that every single electoral test of this question has resulted in the defeat of the contrary proposition of the marriage corrupters.
We would then point out that no rational basis exists upon which to overturn the expressed will of the people, particularly since it accord with universal and immemorial precedent.
Simple as that.
Well Fitz, I sure as heck wouldn't be hiring you. Are you serious?
And yet NOM is making no comment on Romney saying he supports Gay Adoption. Hypocrisy? I think so.
Fitz:
You are so right.
It is remarkable to me that the marriage corrupters were unable to maintain their position on civil unions just another five or ten years.
That would have given enough time for the media to boil the frogs thoroughly.
Sean:
Perhaps you were looking for the National Organization for Adoption website, and landed here by mistake?
"Baker v. Evans 1972; looks to me like you are seven years past your prime grandpa."
Baker was not heard by the SCOTUS.
Memorandum
From: Jan R. van Lohuizen Date: 05/11/12
Re: Same Sex Marriage
Background: in view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:
Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).
The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.
Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:
Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
Protections against bullying and harassment
Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Right to visit partners in hospitals
Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).
Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:
“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.”
Pete,
Baker exhausted all sources of appeal prior to SCOTUS refusing to review the appelate court findings "for want of a constitutional question." In many ways Baker carries more weight than a full SCOTUS review because SCOTUS saw absolutley nothing wrong with the lower court rulings.
All words matter Pete; not just the words you believe gives your argument merit when viewed out of context.
"If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.
—Confucius"
The secret republican guide to talkinging about gay marriage.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-11/the-secret-republican-guide-to-talking-about-gay-marriage
1. Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).
" In many ways Baker carries more weight than a full SCOTUS review because SCOTUS saw absolutley nothing wrong with the lower court rulings."
Not true. Refusing to hear a case does not bear an approval. And only a fool would say it holds more merit. More NOM logic.
2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.
Pete,
Save your lies and faleshoods for those that are comforted by them.
You exposed your trueself just now Pete; and you are too lost to understand it:
"A fool is the lowest thing a man can be"
"It is a sin to call any man a fool."
My lies, these are the words of Republican startigist Jan van Lohuizen to the party
Sorry Randy, you just have to face the facts and not the spins.
@Daughterof Eve#40,
You have already proved the case, and made it perfectly clear. However, you proved the case against yourself and that you do not have a case with SSM. And you know it.
You're way, according to you, has authority. Mine does not, according to you. Who I am, what I think, how I exist, means nothing to you because it doesn't come from authority. I have to be authorized, according to you. Are you getting the point here? Do you have an understanding of what you are saying? Do you have any idea of anything outside that which has been authorized?
eliasasm,
You are denying you you.
Pete:
Thanks for the very interesting link.
There is a battle underway in the Republican Party.
If the pollster in Pete's link represents the Republican Party's position, then I will certainly not be voting Republican this year.
This position is also a guaranteed strategy for defeat.
Shades of John McCain.
The foundational flaw in this strategist's argument, is the fundamental flaw in all arguments concerning pseudo-marriage's "inevitability":
The polls are wrong.
Way wrong.
The electoral results prove this beyond any doubt at all.
@Rick DeLano#42,
"As simple as that"
You're so not worthy.
I just hired you (gawdknowswhy) to defend me in this case. As my lawyer, I want you to, for a very large sum, prove to the court that claims against SSM are unconstitutional and have no merit in society. Simple as that.
Eliasasm, what I have gathered is that
1) you have a problem accepting any authority other than yourself (which could make it hard for you to find/keep a job)
2) you are desperate for validation and yet,
3) vain at the same time (you said, "so not worthy" to a fellow commentator--a metamessage you are probably telling yourself), and, BTW, what is your standard of worthiness? Yourself? Obviously not someone in authority
4) young (not a crime, but just means you have years to go before your brain fully develops, especially the judgement portion of your brain which won't be fully grown until your mid-20's)--probably late middle-school/early high school (I'm guessing because of the way you organize your thoughts/your writing skills (apologies if I'm incorrect),
5) out of touch with reality: "You do not have a case with SSM and you know it." For or against? Articulate, for heaven sake!
and
6) please, please see a counselor. You care way too much about what I think. It's just not healthy. Remember, a wise woman said that no one could make you feel inferior without your permission.
You're a passionate individual and if you were my son I'd encourage you to develop your whole self--hobbies, wholesome activities, uplifting friends/media/music/education/career skills
and not get so wrapped up in your sexuality. That can wait!
Take a deep breath! Everything's going to be ok.
E, delusions of grandeur. This is disturbing.
elias:
Strange.
I checked the mail and the very large retainer has apparently been misplaced in transit......
I'll let you know when it arrives
going to try this again--posts not posting today:
Eliasasm, I think you have delusions of grandeur, a desperate need to be validated, a real problem with authority (which could make getting and keeping a job really difficult), you're very young (which means the part of your brain that makes judgement calls isn't fully formed), insecure manifested by overcompensation (telling Rick, "you're so not worthy)," and the writing and organizational skills of a middle-schooler, inarticulate ("you proved the case against yourself and that you do not have a case with SSM. And you know it.). With you, everything is about "me, me, me." You're profane, and you have a real ego problem. You also project your insecurities onto others (the whole issue of religion, for example) and you pretend to know what others' motives/thoughts are, as though YOU are some kind of authority. You have yet to make one clear, articulate, detailed argument for SSM, and the sad thing is, you DON'T know it. Well, hang in there until you grow up. There's hope yet. "Hire a teenager--they know everything."
Please do not address me again, until you can be civil, coherent, and on-topic.
Interesting debates going on.
Rick said: "If the pollster in Pete's link represents the Republican Party's position, then I will certainly not be voting Republican this year."
I think the Republican strategists know better than to trust a bunch of polling data; after all the polls have proven to be significantly wrong in several occasions, including the most recent polls taken in NC. 32 "real" polls stand.
Yes, the polls are wrong, particularly with this issue. Moreover, what the polls call "support" for so-called same-sex "marriage" does not mean that those people will make a concerted effort to come out and vote on the issue. Indeed, what has been proven time and again is that the people who make it a point to vote about so-called same-sex "marriage" are the people who are against it.
So, even this Danish Pollster's opinion does not suggest that Repubs should support so-called SS"M." That's Obama's albatross that he will wear until after Election Day. Getting Obama out is the only thing that matters; talking points go away after the election.
"If the pollster in Pete's link represents the Republican Party's position, then I will certainly not be voting Republican this year."
The actual poll numbers -the ones Obama gets - paint a much different picture. One need only to have paid attention to the last week of news on this topic to understand just how desperate things are for the marriage corruption movement.
The Marxist are on the hook now for all the world to see.
Randy:
I completely agree with you and remain mystified by the silence of the Romney campaign in the face of this golden opportunity to split the Demoncrat coalition in crucial swing states and so win the election.
Brian,
On a related note, I noticed that Dan savage took you up on your offer to debate him about the Bible. What is the progress of negotiations for this debate?
Eliasasm,
I came down pretty hard on you. I am sorry. Please accept my apology.
sincerely,
D.of.E.
and, to all NOM commentators, those who happen not to share my beliefs regarding marriage, I respect your right to your individual beliefs, and am sorry if I've ever hurt your feelings. I know we're all doing the best we can.
DoE:
Near as I can tell, open not ever repent of telling the truth.
one ought not repent of telling the truth
DOE,
I appreciate your attempts at being lady-like in a fight, but it is not neccessary/warranted. As my Taekwondo instructor once said:
"He out, he not hurt you no-more, but remember; they attack you, so hit them again so when they wake up they know they wrong."
Daughter of Eve,
Thank you for the apology, but none needed. I understand your pov. I am not here to argue merits of SSM so much as to point out the reason why this should even be happening in the first place. And I am merely pointing out to you, non-judgementally (I've never said you where right or wrong) how you present yourself, that's all, that you don't seem to respect my beliefs because they are not authorized the way you believe they should be. The big point here is that SSM marriage is mostly a religious issue created by religion. You are welcome to believe what ever you choose to believe, but your religious beliefs are not mine and yours should not rule over mine or should you think that yours are any more right to you than mine are to me and I should not have to live my life in this country based your beliefs with no respect for mine. My beliefs have nothing to do with you in anyway or do anything to make you be anything different or force you to believe differently, but your way affects me. That's the big point. Live your beliefs to the fullest and allow me to do the same.
Thank you for engaging!
eliasasm,
Marriage in the United States is directly linked to the laws of nature; whereas the sexual depravity you pimp exists outside the laws of nature.
Religion is recognised as immutable and innate under the United States Constitution; which means your religious bigotry is no more acceptable in this nation than race and gender based bigotry are.
Your blatant and willful disregard for the freedom of religion is unacceptable; even more-so when you consider the fact that organised established religion is afforded Hightened Scrutiny protection under the United States Constitution; where-as sexual proclivity does not even warrant a honorable mention.
Traitors to this nation are to be ridiculed; not respected.
"Religion is recognised as immutable..."
No it us not. Newt Gingrich changed his religion at a drop of a hat. Many are giving up in religion every year. I believe you have no idea what immutable means.
*is not
OPEN LETTER EMBRACING PRESIDENT OBAMA’S POSITION ON EQUALITY FOR GAY & LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS
Reverend Al Sharpton, President of National Action Network, along with Julian Bond, Chairman Emeritus of NAACP, Melanie Campbell, President and CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, and Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowery, Civil Rights Icon and President Emeritus of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, released an open letter today embracing President Obama’s position on equality for gay and lesbian individuals in this country.
http://nationalactionnetwork.net/press/open-letter-embracing-president-obamas-position-on-equality-for-gay-lesbian-individuals/
If I were in the anti-marriage equality camp, the trends uncovered by this Republican pollster would have me worried...and before you answer "polls on this topic are always distorted", it's not about veracity of these numbers, it's about TRENDING...http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/bush-pollster-change-in-attitudes-on-gay-marriage-123235.html
Pete,
Your prideful professed ignorance does not speak well of you. Christianity is rooted in the Abrahamic faiths; which include Islam, Catholocism, and Judaism - roughly 3 Billion faithful and rising.
Christianity is the belief that the prophecy of the Christ has been fullfilled; Jews believe in the prophecy of the Christ, but they do not believe Jesus was Christ.
The point remains valid; Religious bigotry is no more acceptable than Racism and Sexism are. "No it isn't" is an excuse; not a rational and ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.
A letter from a couple of notorious hypcrites carries no weight with the faithful. If the noted individuals wish to count themselves with the Godless that is their business; it is to the faithful to turn our backs on them.
Bob,
The only trend I see is in the increased frequency of the misinformation campaing you miscreants have been waging for the past forty years. With every step closer you get to your objective your distortions become more and more blatant.
The actuals are constant whereas your "polls" attempt to paint a much different picture. "Who are you going to believe; me, or your damn lying eyes" will not be enough to carry the day for you.
NC: 62% yes; 38% no
Again, it's about trending. 15 years ago, the split would have been 95/5, and you know it. And calling us miscreants makes you look like the anti-gay bully you are.
Miscreant: Unbeliever
I will not be held to your PC vocabulary designed to lend a greater appearance of acceptability to your proclivity.
"If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.
—Confucius"
If you don not want to be called a miscreant than take the necessary steps. I will use the proper discriptives at all times.
note: There is no such thing as a "gay people." you folks act as if your proclivity changed you into the mythical Unicorn from antiquity.
"Procreation is not a requirement of marriage."
Being approved and allowed to procreate is a requirement of marriage.
We should not allow people to procreate with someone of the same sex, we should not approve of the concept of children from two people of the same sex. We should prohibit creating people by any means other than joining a man and a woman's sperm and egg.
Randy, it's fascinating that you know more about gay people than a gay person. Fascinating.
Bob,
Stop refeering to perverts as if they were a species unto themselves.
The LGBT even dictates that there is no such thing as a "Gay People." If you truly believed your proclivity was acceptable you would not be insisting it be called what it is not.
This is so much fun! I have a simple question: If the primary argument for preserving traditional marriage is morality and nature, what is the view of oral sex and contraception in married couples? Is that behavior equally immoral and unnatural as homosexual relationships?
Albert,
The primary argument for preseving marriage, as it has existed since before this nation earned its independence, is procreation; as acknowledged in numerous court findings dating back to 1853.
And though oral sex is immoral it is no-where near as depraved as same-sex sexual acitvity; as far as Judea/Christian morality is concerned:
Corinthians 6:18-20 – “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.”
Now; Justice Kennedy has opined in recent court findings that personal moral objections is an insufficient reason to limit certain activiities, but where Kennedy erred is in the fact that the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution dictates that people have the right to vote their conscience and said vote must be counted as equal to every other vote on a given subject; which means that justice Kennedy's opinion stands in opposition to the 1st Amendment.
The courts do not have the right to say your vote does not count because it is based on your personal understanding of morality; in fact, SCOTUS is constitutionally forbidden from questioning your rational - it is a freedom of speech issue.
Thank you for your feedback, Randy. I'm not going to debate further. I believe that unless sexual behavior is used solely for procreative sex, there must be a component of intent for pleasure. Therefore a component of lust. I see an argument for equality here if you can connect the dots.
Excellent point.
You want public law to endorse lust as "equal"?
Here's why I take the postion that I do, this is my pov on all this. Sorry If you think that I need someone of authority or have to follow some kind of criteria to have an understanding of what is said in the bible. We all have our pov on that.
The stories in the bible that is used against homosexuality doesn't specifically say that homosexuality is an abomination or a sin. It seems to be more about forceing oneself upon another that is unnatural to the victim. The bad guys wanted to gangrape the angels to humiliate them. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.That to me seems to be more in line with the teachings. Laying with a women in a way that is unnatural to a man to prove himself is not being true to oneself. That would be a lie. Again, that seems to be in line with the teachings. Male and female coming together to make one flesh is how life procreates. No debate there. But nowhere does it seem to say that every single human being is commanded to do so. It's just about how to procreate. I hate to think what this world would be like today if every single human being procreated. We just might not even be here.
Same-Sex Marriage is legal in Canada, and in several states, such as MA. Can anyone show me anything bad that has happened because of this?
Nope. Life goes on as usual.
Other people's love lives are simply non of your business.
AD,
You do not believe the attention these changes promote accross this nation during a time of physcal an moral crisis is a bad thing?
Additionaly, out of wedlock births have dramaticly increased since these draconian laws were forced upon the constituents of the jurisdictions in question. Confidence in our elected representatives are at an all time low and threats of violence, intimidation, religous persecution, and vandelism against those who refuse to accept these forced changes are becoming so pronounced that even the Supreme Court of the United States has had to intervene.
The fact that you cheer these injustices and then dimiss them out of hand as if they are just the price of doing busineess has killed any sympathy I may have had for your rational in support of.
I say it is not enough to beat you folks at the ballot box; we must take the added step of purging our system from your corrupting influence.
"One nation under God..."
Randy E. King:
"...where Kennedy erred is in the fact that the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution dictates that people have the right to vote their conscience and said vote must be counted as equal to every other vote on a given subject; which means that justice Kennedy's opinion stands in opposition to the 1st Amendment."
You couldn't be more wrong. You seem to believe that your freedom of conscience trumps mine. It doesn't. If the first amendment only applies to religious beliefs you approve, speech that you approve, then there is no freedom at all. It's tyranny imposed by Randy E. King.
Randy, I'd love to be able to see you in real life. Are you attractive? Do you have friends? Do you have a good balance of hard work, social life, physical fitness and love? Are you successful? From your posts, i imagine you as a strange, lonely hermit, intent on forcing others to share in your misery. Intent on forcing gays to deny themselves the sexual pleasure you deny yourself. I certainly can't picture you as a bright light.
Bruce,
My right of conscience and free exercise thereof is beyound reproach. You can no sooner question my rational for my vote that I could question you for yours.
My rational for my vote is my business. The courts can rule on weather or not a vote coult be held on a given topic, but they have no right whatsoever to come in after the fact and question rationals; that is the very definition of tyranny.
Tyranny: oppressive power ; especially: oppressive power exerted by government
Bob,
I am married, 6'2, blond hair, blue eyes, 200lbs, one time avid cyclist, aerospace engineer with a degree in telecommunications.
every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson.
"The courts can rule on weather or not a vote coult be held on a given topic, but they have no right whatsoever to come in after the fact and question rationals; that is the very definition of tyranny."
I pretty much agree with the first part of your comment: we both have freedom of conscience. But, at least in certain circumstances, the court CAN question rationale. If voters decide an issue purely on animus with no compelling public interest, the courts can overrule an election. This is what SCOTUS did with Colorado's Amendment 2. I'm sure you've heard of the tyranny of the majority; as someone has said, Democracy must be more than 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Leaked memo: Fellow GOP, it's time to stop fighting gay marriage.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/bush-pollster-change-in-attitudes-on-gay-marriage-123235.html
We're all blond, beautiful and well educated in the Internet. Anonymity is a wonderful thing.
Kennedy's majority opinion was just that; his opinion. The courts rational in Texas and in Colorado where based on the right of association in Colorado and the equal application of the law in Texas.
The most recent Prop 8 rulings are based on Kennedy's opinion; and not the merits of the ruling of the individual cases.
The courts cannot question motivations after the fact; it is a full frontal assault on the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Yeah, that just doesn't ring true, Randy. Why would someone attractive, fit and successful spend their Saturday afternoons angrily calling gay and lesbians perverts?
Funny that I see Thomas Jefferson quoted in these forums. Of all the founding fathers he had to be the least Christian. Look up the Jefferson bible, you'll see that he took the bible and whittled it down to 39 pages, cutting out all the stuff he didn't believe in. What was left was title, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.
Pete (writes)
"Not true. Refusing to hear a case does not bear an approval. And only a fool would say it holds more merit. More NOM logic."
More "Peter ignorant of the law" logic. Baker v Nelson was dissmissed for "want of a substantial federal question" - in laymans terms that is about the biggest slapdown a court can give. It means they reviewed the lower court ruling and plaintif/defendant arguments and found nothing of persuasive enough to grant a full appeal.
As such did not "refuse to hear the case" as you seem to believe. That is called "not granting certiorie" or (cert). N, they read the case but dismmised its arguments. As such it's considered a "decision on the merits" and therefore considered binding precedent for lower Federal courts and future Supreme Courts.
Now - please Peter...stop using "NOM" logic...if that is Nom logic, than NOM & the law use the same logic.
You dont do your side justice when you come uninformed and swing wildly at your advesaries thinking your striking blows when in actuality your displaying your lack of knowledge.
Plus, if you are an aerospace engineer (rocket scientist) your degree would be based in physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer sciences, statistics and engineering.
I'm not seeing it.
Pervert: A unusual or abnormal sexual act that is habitual.
Next thing you know you will be ragging on people for calling a horse a horse, a dog a dog, a cat a cat...
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck odds are you are looking at a duck.
FYI: I work in engineering; which means my Saturday is at home infromt of my 58" plasms while surfing on my Alienware laptop
TCOM is a BS degree in Computer Science:
The design, installation, implementation, and management of a complete telecommunication system; voice and data. - MCSE, MCSA, MCP, CCNA
Pete
"Funny that I see Thomas Jefferson quoted in these forums. Of all the founding fathers he had to be the least Christian. Look up the Jefferson bible, you'll see that he took the bible and whittled it down to 39 pages, cutting out all the stuff he didn't believe in. What was left was title, "The Life and Morals of Jesus Nazareth."
Most learned observors would say Benjermin Franklin was the least Christian. Regardless...the Jefferson Bible was never published by Jefferson and was simplly an experiment he conducted for his own use in his privatge library. He did not take the "entire Bible", just the Gospels. He did not "cutt out all the stuff he didn't believe in" rather he removed the passages that had supernatural refrences (miracles) leaving only - "The Life and Morals of Jesus Nazareth."
A life and morality that exalts the family & marriage (and knows how its defined)
Also: A fair review of the founders understanding of the democratic project encounters (again & again) there universal agreement that a lasting and authentic democracy requires a religion as a sustaining force that enculcates virtue & morals in the populace"
Pete
"Funny that I see Thomas Jefferson quoted in these forums. Of all the founding fathers he had to be the least Christian. Look up the Jefferson bible, you'll see that he took the bible and whittled it down to 39 pages, cutting out all the stuff he didn't believe in. What was left was title, "The Life and Morals of Jesus Nazareth."
Most learned observors would say Benjermin Franklin was the least Christian. Regardless...the Jefferson Bible was never published by Jefferson and was simplly an experiment he conducted for his own use in his privatge library. He did not take the "entire Bible", just the Gospels. He did not "cutt out all the stuff he didn't believe in" rather he removed the passages that had supernatural refrences (miracles) leaving only - "The Life and Morals of Jesus Nazareth."
A life and morality that exalts the family & marriage (and knows how its defined)
Fitz, ever hear of "Denial of certiorari?"
If the U.S. Supreme Court denies a petition for a writ of certiorari (a request to hear a case on appeal), then the decision of the lower court is final.
Denial of certiorari occurs in 98-99% of cases, and in no way implies that the court agrees with the lower court's decision. Denial only means that the case, as presented, isn't of sufficient importance to warrant a review, doesn't involve constitutional issues, conforms to a precedent already set, falls outside the court's jurisdiction, or is moot, etc.
Between 7,500 and 8,500 cases are presented for review each year, but the court can only choose 80-150 to hear, so the Justices have to limit themselves to those cases that have the greatest impact on the law and on society.
If a case is denied certiorari, the decision of the last "court of competent jurisdiction" to handle the case is affirmed and the case is concluded. Affirmation by default does not necessarily indicate the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court decision; nor does accepting a case for review necessarily mean the Court disagrees with the lower court decision.
Pete (writes)
"Funny that I see Thomas Jefferson quoted in these forums. Of all the founding fathers he had to be the least Christian. Look up the Jefferson bible, you'll see that he took the bible and whittled it down to 39 pages, cutting out all the stuff he didn't believe in. What was left was title, "The Life and Morals of Jesus Nazareth."
Most learned observors would say Benjermin Franklin was the least Christian. Regardless...the Jefferson Bible was never published by Jefferson and was simplly an experiment he conducted for his own use in his privatge library. He did not take the "entire Bible", just the Gospels. He did not "cutt out all the stuff he didn't believe in" rather he removed the passages that had supernatural refrences (miracles) leaving only - "The Life and Morals of Jesus Nazareth."
Fitz, try getting your information from a reputable source, not some anti-gay site that spoon feeds you crap.
Pete
Did you even read my post above where I discussed denial of cert?
Except as a matter of FACT: the Supreme Court did not "deny certiorari?" it granted cert, reviewed the case and dismmised the case for "want of a substantial federal question"..
This (as stated) consitutes a "decision on the merits" and as such Baker v Nelson is bindbinding precedent for lower Federal courts and future Supreme Courts.
FACT: Baker v Nelson was NOT denied certiorari.
FACT:Baker v Nelson was reviewed by SCOTUS
FACT:Baker v Nelson was dismissed for "lack of a substantial federal question"
FACT: That consitutes a decision on the merits
FACT: Baker v Nelson in now binding Federal precedent.
Pete
Most learned observors would say Benjermin Franklin was the least Christian. Regardless...the Jefferson Bible was never published by Jefferson and was simplly an experiment he conducted for his own use in his privatge library. He did not take the "entire Bible", just the Gospels. He did not "cutt out all the stuff he didn't believe in" rather he removed the passages that had supernatural refrences (miracles) leaving only - "The Life and Morals of Jesus Nazareth."
A life and morality that exalts the family & marriage (and knows how its defined)
Pete,
98 to 99% of the cases SCOTUS reviews do not exhaust every avenue of appeal before reaching the Supreme Court.
In 2006 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit upheld Nebraska's SSM ban stating "Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings." This is notable not just because the 8th cited Baker as the governing precedence, but because the plaintiffs decline to appeal the ruling to SCOTUS because it was the only option left and the did not want to be the ones that cemented Baker as the law of the land.
Question for the gay people here: Do you demand an equal right to conceive offspring with someone of the same sex? Or would you accept a ban on experimental procedures that created babies by any means other than joining a man and a woman's sperm and egg?
Recall, Eliasasm, that the commandment to Adam and Eve and their posterity was to "be fruitful, etc." That commandment was never revoked. But sexual intimacy is clearly reserved for marriage, which Christ defined as between a man and a woman--no exceptions given, at any time (therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife, etc., to paraphrase). There are a multitude of other scriptureal references in the N.T. showing clearly that homosexual behavior was never sanctioned, for any reason; therefore, it would be difficult to appeal to the Bible to argue that homosexual behavior is given legitimacy if SSM becomes the law of the land. Of course, when it comes to Holy Writ, it helps to read it in its entirety, with cross-referencing, in order to get a clearer picture of meaning. Cherry picking does no one any favors, and renders a person just knowledgeable enough to do some damage.
The verb "pervert" means
- to turn away from the right course
- to lead astray morally or to corrupt
- to turn from the proper to an improper use or purpose
The act of promoting men having sex with men to the public is perverse whether one engages in the act or not.
This is because (1) it turns developing youth from the right course (2) its leads astray and morally corrupts developing youth, and (3) it turns developing youth from the proper use of the body to an improper use.
Thus, the verb "to pervert" accurately describes whoever votes to legitimize queer sex marriage to developing youth.
If someone spends their time to oppose perversity they act to benefit society against those who act to corrupt it.
Thus the correct question is "Why would someone attractive, fit and successful spend their time to oppose the public promotion of perversity and to protect society from those who act to corrupt it?"
PLease, recall, too, Eliasasm, that I am wiithin my Constitutinoal rights to believe my system of beliefs/faith as superior to any other, if I so choose, just as you are free to do. Tolerance doesn't mean we have to embrace each other's beliefs, simply that we allow each other the latitude to believe and live (within legal limits) as best suits our conscience. I know you don't appreciate authority, but you must concede the Constitution is THE authority of the land, and you and I are both bound to it. I may not necessarily "respect" your beliefs; I am not bound to by law. I am bound to respect your right to believe as you choose. And in that regard, I do respect you. Remember that respect cannot be legislated, only earned.
Eliasasm, even though you believe that my beliefs affect you, please recall that you and I are both operating on a level playing field, which is that we both have one vote, and we are both free to take our beliefs/philosophies/ideas/ideals with us into the voting booth, and vote for legislation which best reflects our values.
My values are unwavering, where it comes to marriage being defined as the public union of a man and a woman. I care not what the private sexual orientation of either is, nor for which political affiliation they identify (such as "gay," for example), only that each marriage union consist of a man and woman. From my perspective, your sexual orientation is neither here nor there; I don't deny you the privilege of identifying with any group you choose, or deny you the privilege of associating with whomever you will, for however long you wish, in whatever setting of your choice. But, I'll never budge on man/woman marriage.
You were kind to return my apology with grace. Thank you.
The founders established the Constitution of the land with the understanding that only a virtuous people could make it work. Based on scholarly writings, the founders expected that virtue would be taught in the home, by married mothers and fathers, who would passs on to their children such knowledge and example as would be necessary to live lives of virtue and integrity, such that there would be the least need for the long arm of the govt. to reach inside the private lives of American families and individual citizenry. Such virtues certainly included self-mastery over passions directing procreation, as well as honesty, hard work, self-reliance, loyalty, integrity, etc. As marriage and family disintegrate, we can expect to see more lawllessness, to the point where our govt. won't be able to pass enough laws to control the selfishness of individuals with no virtue and no integrity. Virtue is taught in the home, not in schools, and certainly not through the example of our govt. Want to stamp out corruption in govt. and business? Teach virtue in teh home. We cannot sacrifice man/woman marriage, and all the good it provides to children and to society, on the alter of adult selfishness. Not without paying a steep price.
Wow; well said bman.
Fitz, we live in the post-Romer, post-Lawrence world now, Baker was 40 years ago, and seen as antiquated. In Perry, the cour found baker to be irrelivent.
Judge White in Golinski went further: Baker v. Nelson could not be a barrier to a gay person's fundamental right to marry because all the fundamental right to marry cases -- from Loving to Zablocki to Turner -- were not about particular kinds of marriages or particular kinds of spouses. They were about a single fundamental right to decide to marry that everyone enjoys, regardless of the character of the spouse.
Yes, Bman. True Christian values with the name calling.
Because, bman, you and yours are aggressively seeking a federal constitutional amendment that denies me -- not an abstract -- from having the civil right to marry the consenting adult I love. You are attacking me every day. You are bad people.
Randy @ 91 - Please explain how gay people are responsible for out wedlock births? I thought gay people were unable to reproduce. Isn't that the line NOM uses over and over and over...
As far as the attention goes, all I hear are the religious conservatives throwing a fit because they don't like gay people. Well, too bad. Get over it.
And exactly which injustice did I cheer?
The following is from the Wikepedia regarding the case Baker v. Nelson:
@109 Most gay people don't have or want children. Those who do, usually adopt. Bringing children into a discussion on gay rights is totally irrelevant.
Pete:
So SCOTUS did grant cert?
Baker is standing precedent?
You should do your research and reading BEFORE you type...
FYI - Those rulings you cite are more novel than you realize... like the Golinski argument that reduces marriage to what it needs it to be in order to dismiss ALL case precedent in that area..
Romer and Lawrence dont do what you want them to do because their authors & the authors of the concuring opinion said this...
"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations — the asserted state interest in this case — other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group...
Sandra Day O 'Connor, Lawrence v Texas
"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. IT DOES NOT INVOLVE WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT MUST GIVE FORMAL RECOGNITION TO ANY RELATIONSHIP THAT HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS SEEK TO ENTER. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. "
Lawrence v Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy
Consider, Bob, that polygamists are in the same boat. Are we "bad" people for not legalizing polygamy?
Pete:
So SCOTUS did grant cert?
Baker is standing precedent?
You should do your research and reading BEFORE you type...
FYI - Those rulings you cite are more novel than you realize... like the Golinski argument that reduces marriage to what it needs it to be in order to dismiss ALL case precedent in that area..
Pete:
So SCOTUS did grant cert?
Baker is standing precedent?
You should do your research and reading BEFORE you type...
Pete:
FYI - Those rulings you cite are more novel than you realize... like the Golinski argument that reduces marriage to what it needs it to be in order to dismiss ALL case precedent in that area..
Romer and Lawrence dont do what you want them to do because their authors & the authors of the concuring opinion said this...
"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations — the asserted state interest in this case — other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group...
Sandra Day O 'Connor, Lawrence v Texas
"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. IT DOES NOT INVOLVE WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT MUST GIVE FORMAL RECOGNITION TO ANY RELATIONSHIP THAT HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS SEEK TO ENTER. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. "
Lawrence v Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy
But AD, bringing gay rights into a discussion on marriage is totally irrelevant.
Pete:
- Those rulings you cite are more novel than you realize... like the Golinski argument that reduces marriage to what it needs it to be in order to dismiss ALL case precedent in that area..
Romer and Lawrence dont do what you want them to do because their authors & the authors of the concuring opinion said this...
"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations — the asserted state interest in this case — other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group...
Sandra Day O 'Connor, Lawrence v Texas
"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. it does not involve whether the goverment must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. "
Lawrence v Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy
Pete:
- Those rulings you cite are more novel than you realize... like the Golinski argument that reduces marriage to what it needs it to be in order to dismiss ALL case precedent in that area..
Romer and Lawrence dont do what you want them to do because their authors & the authors of the concuring opinion said this...
"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations — the asserted state interest in this case — other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group...
Sandra Day O 'Connor, Lawrence v Texas
There are various forms of marriage that some want legalized such as incest marriage, threesome marriage, harems, group marriages, and queer sex marriage.
You (and they) have no civil right to have society publicly sanction any form of marriage that is morally corrupt, which is what queer sex marriage is.
Pete:
- Those rulings you cite are more novel than you realize... like the Golinski argument that reduces marriage to what it needs it to be in order to dismiss ALL case precedent in that area..
Romer and Lawrence dont do what you want them to do because their authors & the authors of the concuring opinion said this...
"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations — the asserted state interest in this case — other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group...
Sandra Day O 'Connor, Lawrence v Texas
Pete:
- Those rulings you cite are more novel than you realize... like the Golinski argument that reduces marriage to what it needs it to be in order to dismiss ALL case precedent in that area..
Romer and Lawrence dont do what you want them to do because their authors & the authors of the concuring opinion said this...
"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations — the asserted state interest in this case — other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group..."
Sandra Day O 'Connor, Lawrence v Texas
AD (writes)
"Please explain how gay people are responsible for out wedlock births? I thought gay people were unable to reproduce. Isn't that the line NOM uses over and over and over"
We never say this...pro-SS"M" simply twist our points to make it sound like were scapegoating..
What we do say: is that given the high out-of-wedlock birthrate its wrong to seperate marriage and procreation by insituting same-sex "marriage".
Put another way...
"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."
Walter Fauntroy- Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC
The majority of high courts to consider the issue since Lawrence, as well as the majority of people voting on it, have rejected a right to same-sex marriage.
The antiquated claim is simply false.
The problem with using Romer & Lawrence in SS"M" is that the person who wrote both opinions as well as the concuring opinion in Lawrence said this..
"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations — the asserted state interest in this case — other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group...
Sandra Day O 'Connor, Lawrence v Texas
"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. IT DOES NOT INVOLVE WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT MUST GIVE FORMAL RECOGNITION TO ANY RELATIONSHIP THAT HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS SEEK TO ENTER. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. "
Lawrence v Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy
@DaughterofEve,
Seriously, this is freaky. I don't know how much more clear I can possibly be for you to see the point I am trying to make to you and all of you. You do not have to accept it, just at least respond in some kind of a way that you have even a hint of an Idea of what it is that we are trying to get you to see. Jeez. You just keep telling me how right you are because it says so. There is no way to look at anything other than your way and you just keep repeating it. What is keeping you from understanding that what you see is what you have chosen to see and believe and to you it is factual. Too You (emphasis added) it is factual and only because you have chosen to believe it. The bible is not factual to everybody, never has been, never will be. Life goes on and on and on either way. Why do you not want to acknowledge that you think that your way is the right and only way and any other way is the wrong way? Why do you not want to acknowledge that your way is Your way and it is not all ways?
@DaughterofEve#112,
'PLease, recall, too, Eliasasm, that I am wiithin my Constitutinoal rights to believe my system of beliefs/faith as superior to any other, if I so choose, just as you are free to do.'
You are constitutionally protected to claim superiority over another? Holy mother of pearl.
Wow. And I am free to do so, too? Why would I want to? Why would I want to claim superiority over anyone? Wow, really? But everyone is free to their own beliefs, you say. Apparently not. What you seem to be saying is that everyone is free to chose the right way which is your way because you have the right to say so. What are you? Why can't you see that as probably not a good idea?
eliasasm,
Because you are asking us to accept your theory at face value, to give up our birthright, and our fidelity to the laws of nature, in exchange for what; your solemn promise that you will not destory anything else?
We have our freedom because of our faith; we do not have our faith because of our freedom. If you want to rub your reproductive organ against same gendered partners than so be it, but don't expect us to kowtow in response of your demand for public acknowledgement of the acceptability of your depravity.
You will find no willing victims here.
The Bible has proved to be Historically accurate; this is true for everybody. Just because you choose not to accept these truths we hold to be self evident does not necessitate we acquiesce to your request.
Well, E, you're just going to have to be freaked. Some of us actually believe in God, in commandments, in Christ who is "the way," and in Absolute Truth. I'm not sure why this is coming as such a surprise. I'm certainly not the first Christian you've ever encountered, surely? I'm not the first Christian to stick to my guns on marriage between a man and a woman either. You go "your way." See if, in the end, it gets you where you hoped to be. I have higher standards, and a higher goal. And now, I believe we've covered this topic ad nauseum. The subject is marriage definition. Let's stick to that, because as far as religion goes, I have nothing further to say that you will want to hear, and you have nothing to offer me that is better than what I already have or can possibly lead to greater happiness and enlightenment than that which I already enjoy. You reject authority, and then demand me to accept your p.o.v., as though you have any authority. Who do you think you are? You really don't know, do you. Best wishes.
Eliasasm, if you could please refrain from putting words in my mouth. You think "your way" is superior to mine, or you'd be living the same beliefs I do. So, you do think your way "superior." Either that, or you're willing to drift on the wind. Now that is scary. I don't think "my way" is superior, or that I am superior. I think Christ's way is superior, and it's His way I'm tryiing to follow. You are free to follow your own whims, as you will. I support that right. I don't think it's wise, but it's your life, and your consequences. You're not forced to live the way I do, and implying that is juvenile and rediculous. We are on equal footing, thanks to the voting booth. You vote for legislaton according to your conscience, and I'll vote for legislation according to mine. Level playing field in this amazing republic we live in.
@DoE#120,
How do you equate polygamists with homosexuals? Where do you get the idea that there is anything simular?
I am not picking on you, seriously, just good examples.
#122,
"bringing gay rights into a discussion on marriage is totally irrelevant."
Exactly, so why are you doing it?
BTW, gay rights? Why do you call it gay rights? No one is fighting for gay rights. It's called civil/equal rights that includes everybody, even gays. sorry 'bout that. Not.
DoE,
I am really sorry, but you didn't hear a word I said.
Nothing you said has anything to do with what I said. I am not against you. I am doing nothing to you. Who I am and how I live my life has nothing to do with you or have any effect whatsoever in any way. But you want to make it that way, and you can't see that. And you won't discuss the reason.
Also, you have been awfully judgemental of me even though you know nothing about me or how I think or what I believe. I have not judged you or come close to saying things about you that you have said about me. I have never attacked you as a person. I am only pointing out how you appear and how you present yourself and what I hear in your words and how defensive you seem to be. I actually listen and hear. Too bad you can't hear because the point you can't hear just might make all this SSM nonsense go away. But you would rather be right. Alrighty then.
"The Bible has proved to be Historically accurate; this is true for everybody."
Really, could you post some proof to this?
"The majority of high courts to consider the issue since Lawrence, as well as the majority of people voting on it, have rejected a right to same-sex marriage."
So you have been sleeping the past few years?
The Iowa supreme court unanimously voted that banning gay marriage was against their constitution. The 3 DOMA cases are finding on the federal level that current laws are unconstitutional.
You are going to be one disappointed guy.
So Brian, why so silent? Dan Savage took you up on your challenge, now man up and respond.
The Iowa Supreme Court lost three of its memebers last election and they will probably lose the remaining traitors the next go around.
You sit by gleefully while appointed attorney's violate their oaths of office; while the President of the United States instructs his justice department to misrepresent we the people in defense of our duly constituted laws, and then you feign dismay and bewilderment when others call you immoral.
Your tyranny will not stand; You are well on your way to losing this war; as is evident by the "All hands on deck" pronouncement of your Marxist-in-chief sitting in our Oval Office - for seven more months.
Everybody knows you believe you stacked the deck, but I predict that you will soon slip back into the crack you crawled out of to plot your next assault on the source of our freedom.
Your reply ignores the link I provided above so perhaps you went to sleep.
The linked article classifies the Iowa case among the minority of cases, and the DOMA cases are under appeal so they don't count as settled cases.
Also regarding DOMA, the House voted to stop the Justice Department from using taxpayer funds to oppose DOMA just this past week.
The defense of DOMA composed by Paul Clement also seems very strong. http://www.nylj.com/nylawyer/adgifs/decisions/080311blagmemo.pdf.
And let's not forget the people of Iowa voted out all the judges who were up for a retention vote.
You need to modify your "antiquated" claim so it reflects the larger picture, therefore.
Pete:
The problem witrh relying on Lawrence & Romer
"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations — the asserted state interest in this case — other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group...
Sandra Day O 'Connor, Lawrence v Texas
"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. IT DOES NOT INVOLVE WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT MUST GIVE FORMAL RECOGNITION TO ANY RELATIONSHIP THAT HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS SEEK TO ENTER. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. "
Lawrence v Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy
Hey Kool-Aid!!!
Pete (writes)
"So you have been sleeping the past few years?"
No he said that "The majority of high courts to consider the issue since Lawrence, as well as the majority of people voting on it, have rejected a right to same-sex marriage."
This is infact accurate: You just dont here about all your judicial loses including Washington State, New York State, Arizona, Maryland and so forth...
He even provided a link...It is accurat...dont make the same mistake you did with the Baker decision, and rush in with an inacurate, emotionally driven response.
Peter (writes)
"The 3 DOMA cases are finding on the federal level that current laws are unconstitutional."
Really...? What cases are those Pete??? And you say their "finding" as in currently finding what you want them to find??? How do you know with no decision yet rendered??
Remeber: dont make the same mistake you did with the Baker decision, and rush in with an inacurate, emotionally driven response.
This whole organization is a Catholic/Mormon proxy for hating gays. You drone on and on with your bulls*it reasons and rationalizations, but this is all about your hatred of homosexuals. Whether it's because you are a lonely, ignored, uptight Mormon housewife, or a self-hating homosexual "struggling with same-sex attraction", you all have in common your hatred of the "other". You are bad people.
Brian,
I just wanted to inquire once again as to when the debate with Dan savage will occur. He accepted your offer to debate. Please set a date and let us know well in advance. I am very excited about this debate.
@Randy "don't expect us to kowtow in response of your demand for public acknowledgement of the acceptability of your depravity."
Especially the acceptability of conceiving children together somehow. Even if labs assured us it was safe, it would still be unacceptable and unethical and we woudl be much better off to prohibit it. The benefits of prohibiting it right now far outweigh the benefits of leaving it legal.
@AD 119 "@109 Most gay people don't have or want children. Those who do, usually adopt. Bringing children into a discussion on gay rights is totally irrelevant."
So, are you agreeing to give up the demand to be allowed to conceive offspring together if a lab said it was safe? I know most gay people don't want to do it, that's my point: You should give up the demand, and tell those few radical Transhumanists that they are keeping most gay people from achieving what they do want, which is all the OTHER rights and benefits of marriage. It is possible to separate them, by defining Civil Unions as simply "marriage minus conception rights" so that marriage retains all the conception rights it has always conveyed, and a man and a woman won't be equated to a same-sex couple in terms of their right to conceive offspring together.
After reviewing the offerings of the marriage corruption supporters on this blog one must surmise that they have absolutley no defense; that they are just a well heeled arganized horde of decadent miscreants who believe they can bully their way to suspect class status.
The blatant anti-religious bigotry on display serves as a warning to the faithful that this is a fight for their right to exist.
@Bob
And you couldn't have been more wrong. My belief in Marriage stems not from hatred but from a tradition that stretches over a millenia. I don't hate homosexuals, not one bit.
@Zack#141,
"I don't hate homosexuals, not one bit."
Then stop this nonsense.
eliasasm,
You do not have a civil right to mandate your depravity be deemed acceptable by society.
I'll repeat: you can't win an argument with an idiot. But kudos to Fitz, Randy, bman, and all the other marriage supporters, who schooled "Pete" on the law. I doubt if he read your posts, but they were good!
Later on, I'll have to catch up on the conversation between DoE, eliasm, and John
Marriage corruption supporters do not have a defense for their position; which explains why they are completely dependent upon offense.
As every good sports fan knows; defense wins Super Bowls.
How come you never hear anything about the "self-hating bi-sexuals"..???
eliasasm,
Marriage laws in the United States have been tied to the need to encourage "responsible" procreation; not procreation for procreations sake.
Same-gendered companions cannot procreate within the construct of their relationship; so civil society has no vested interest in promoting said construct - you folks can fend for yourselves.
You are free; be happy.
Hate Group NOM Attacks Newborn Son of Rep Jared Polis4
Oct
Welcome to the world, Caspian Julius!
We are frequently unsurprised when hate groups such as Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) or others go after gays and lesbians who want to be married. In fact, it’s expected. But today, NOM outdid itself in its rhetoric around Congress’ first openly gay father.
In a post on their blog, NOM wrote:
“We have no clue whether it was a planned motherless family or whether he and his partner stepped in to give a motherless child a family–since he will not say.”
Last week, Rep. Jared Polis and his partner Marlon Reis, welcomed into the world Caspian Julius, weighing 8 lbs, 12 oz. The birth was greeted with statements of support and love from around the country and today, an attack from hate group NOM.
NOM followed-up it’s blog post with a tweet:
“Openly gay #CO Rep. @JaredPolis announces with pride that his child has no mother.”
According to their website, NOM “is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it.” They claim that they exist to protect marriage, yet their tweets and comments and blog posts focus solely on attacking lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people.
Clearly in their current attack on Congressman Polis, they are ignoring the fact that an extraordinarily large majority (some say as high as 75%) of children do not live with their biological parents. NOM’s own former president Maggie Gallagher, was herself a single parent for many years. And current president Brian Brown spends much of his time traveling the country to attack LGBT people, while his wife raises their children essentially on her own.
So please don’t be fooled. The National Organization for Marriage, exists only to attack LGBT people, they’re protecting nothing. If they were actually interested in protecting marriage, maybe they’d spend a little more time on their own.
eliasasm,
Where is the offense?
You start your offering off with a unsubstantied accusation and then attempt to justify your slander with what appears to be a valid request for clarification taken out of context.
You expectation is that no one should be at all surprised when miscreants expose a defenseless child to a familial construct that exists outside of the laws of nature?
eliasasm, you're talking to someone who doesn't believe that calling someone a pervert is offensive.
Rep. Jared Polis exists to deprive some poor innocent child of his Mother.
All this while the underclass sufferers under 70% illigetamacy rates..
This child never had a choice in their life...he has a right to know and be known by the Mother that bore him..Thats an international human right of every child & Jared Polis and his partner calously have treated this child like some consumer good...obtaining him without A mother in a married home much less HIS mother in a married home.
Dear reader: which of your parents? Mom/Dad is disposible in your life??
Jared Polis exists to deprive some poor innocent child of his Mother. All this while the underclass sufferers under 70% illigetamacy rates..
This child never had a choice in their life...he has a right to know and be known by the Mother that bore him..
Thats an international human right of every child & Jared Polis and his partner calously have treated this child like some consumer good...obtaining him without A mother in a married home much less HIS mother in a married home.
Dear reader: which of your parents? Mom/Dad is disposible in your life??
Ash, really? I seemed to remember that you find NARTHs studies, base on the discredited work of Paul Cameron as legit. Yet the APA isn't? You are quick to dismiss or discredit any facts that don't fit into your narrow bias.
Just another citizen in NOM's bizarro world. I guess you also agree with Delano that the sun revolves around the earth.
Randy, it's libel, not slander, if it is communicated via written form.
Descredited by who Pete; marriage corruption supporters?
Having your findings labasted by those who hold an opposing point of view is as about as credible as looking to Stalin as the foremost expert on Democracy, or to Hitler as the foremost expert on Judaism.
Slander:
the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation.
Libel;
a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means (3): the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4): the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel .
It is called an education Bryce; get one.
Zack: I don't care about the Millenia. I'm 50, and watching my parents die in their 80's taught me I maybe have 35 years left. I'd love to spend them married to my partner of the past six years. You see, I'm not an abstract or a percentage of the population. I'm a real, live, flesh-and-blood human being. Can't you just leave me alone and focus on your own life and loves?
Bob,
You are demanding public acknowledgement of your living arrangement; which necessitates the public discussion of the appropriatness of said acknowledgement.
You are free to love anything you want; there is no laws prohibiting you from doing so.
Randy, you are a bad person.
Bob,
"Randy, you are a bad person."
Reminds me of a response from a Mike Myers character that goes spastic whenever he has chocolate after a little girl flirtatiously offers him a piece of her chocolate bar:
"You are the Devil."
LOL
Nothing you say is remotely funny. You have a rancid heart and a toxic soul. I take small comfort in the knowledge that someone as ungenerous and ungracious as you cannot possibly know true love or happiness.
And by the way, your side is completely losing the culture war: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/business/media/gay-on-tv-its-all-in-the-family.html?hpw
Bob, you nailed it. A bunch of mean spirited thugs, in the name if god of course.
And even internally (as this recently leaked internal memo shows), the GOP realizes the writing is on the wall, noting "what recent same-sex marriage surveys have found, which is a change in public support at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down.": http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/bush-pollster-change-in-attitudes-on-gay-marriage-123235.html
"New Yorker Magazine Predicts Gay Rights Victory in North Carolina"
How's that working out for you?
You boys should change your PR firms name to:
"Lie, Sweartoit, and How"
1. CHILDREN DESERVE TWO BIOLOGICAL PARENTS: Proponents of Prop 8 argued that “children are better off when raised by two biological parents” and so only potential biological parents should be allowed to marry. The Court ruled this argument irrelevant, because “Proposition 8 had absolutely no effect on the ability of same-sex couples to become parents or the manner in which children are raised in California.” In addition to the fact that California law recognizes that same-sex couples are “fully capable of… responsibly caring for and raising children,” it also favors parental social relationships over biological relationships as it is. So, besides the fact that the argument simply isn’t true, it has nothing to do with the impact of Prop 8 and is entirely inconsistent with California law.
2. MARRIAGE PROMOTES “RESPONSIBLE PROCREATION”: Proponents also argued that marriage has the specific purpose of encouraging “responsible procreation” that needs only be offered to opposite-sex couples — in essence, that because same-sex couples cannot accidentally have children, they do not need (read: deserve) the privilege of marriage. Like the first, this claim is completely irrelevant, because Proposition 8 was a question of rescinding a right, not extending one. For this argument to carry any weight, proponents would have had to prove that same-sex marriage would make opposite-sex couples “more likely to procreate accidentally or irresponsibly.” Given the absurdity of the notion, the Court found that this argument, “to put it mildly, does not help Proponents’ cause.” In addition, “it is implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman."
3. CALIFORNIA SHOULD “PROCEED WITH CAUTION” WHEN REDEFINING MARRIAGE: Opponents of equality regularly argue that the “consequences” of same-sex marriage have not yet been realized, but Prop 8 had little to do with “caution.” As the Court points out, “the purpose and effect of Proposition 8 was ‘to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California’ — not to ‘suspend’ or ‘study’ that right.” Proposition 8 was an unabashed permanent ban on same-sex marriages and cannot be construed as anything less.
E,
Both points 1 & 2 each ignore existing SCOTUS precedence that acknowledges that:
"Procreation is a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings."
4. PROPOSITION 8 HELPED PROTECT “RELIGIOUS LIBERTY”: The Court quickly dismisses the claim that banning same-sex marriage has anything to do with preserving so-called “religious liberty,” given Prop 8 did not change any of California’s antidiscrimination laws that protect sexual orientation. Any equality opponent wishing to use religion as a means to refuse services to same-sex couples gains nothing from Prop 8.
E,
To point (3); SCOTUS precedence already dictates that the people have the right to roll back previously established rights as long as they do not exceed prviously established SCOTUS precendence.
As it turns out SCOTUS establishes governing Constitutional guidlines; not the states - imagine that.
5. CHILDREN WOULD BE TAUGHT THAT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE ARE THE SAME: Conservatives have stoked fears that LGBT equality threatens children for decades, and did not hesitate to do the same regarding Prop 8. The Court found little weight in this argument, pointing out that California law empowers schools with control over the content of their sexual health education curricula. Similarly, schools are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation — Prop 8 or no Prop 8. Perhaps most poignantly, the Court pointed out that schools are supposed to teach reality:
Schools teach about the world as it is; when the world changes, lessons change. A shift in the State’s marriage law may therefore affect the content of classroom instruction just as would the election of a new governor, the discover of a new chemical element, or the adoption of a new law permitting no-fault divorce: students learn about these as empirical facts of the world around them. But to protest the teaching of these facts is little different from protesting their very existence; it is like opposing the election of a particular governor on the ground that students would learn about his holding office, or opposing the legitimation of no-fault divorce because a teacher might allude to that fact if a course in societal structure were taught to graduating seniors. The prospect of children learning about the laws of the State and society’s assessment of the legal rights of its members does not provide an independent reason for stripping members of a disfavored group of those rights they presently enjoy.
More than anything, this decision demonstrates that most of the arguments against same-sex marriage have little to do with the institution of marriage itself. The only compelling explanation for banning same-sex marriage is animus against the gay community.
Just trying to get this thread up to 200 comments. We know these words have no meaning to NOMulans.
E,
To point (4); speculative at best; has no effect on (2)to (1) majority rational that is based on the belief that once a right is established it cannot be revearsed - a rational that is in opposition with standing SCOTUS precedence.
The most powerful and authoritative man on planet Earth has spoken. There is no greater voice on Earth than President Obama and that has you all scared poopless. Silly
"The most powerful and authoritative man on planet Earth has spoken" & will be a one term President
Yeah, Randy, it was a real shocker that the last state of a former union dedicated to the enslavement of human beings (and later to the complete segregation of the races), voted to enshrine discrimination against a minority group. Simply shocking.
Bob,
Yeah...?
Well your mother dresses you funny!
Randy, I'm sure that's precisely how you bullied the gay kids in school...
Bob,
You need to stop referencing those that share your proclivity as though it turned you folks into the mythical Unicorn of antiquity.
You are not a species unto yourselves.
The peer pressure you miscreants pimp is the worst type of bullying known to man.
Eliasasm forgets entirely that the "most powerful man on earth" derives his "power" with the consent of we-the-people. He is our public servant #1, and we are his employers. If we do not like the job he is doing (and many of us think he's forgotten he's not a dictator, but our employee), we will terminat his employment via the voting booth. And quite happy to do so, I might add.
What, don't they teach civics in middle school any more?!
We all know that if gays want to get married, then why should they. All gays are heterophobic, and hate the oppostie sex as we all know. However,the marriage between a man and a woman is a union and consumation can occur. This is a natural thing that occurs for our basic existence. it is by nature, impossible for gays to ever consumate their marriage. So when two men or two women marry, is it truly, ever a real marriage at all? NO. Because it impossible for two gays to consumate? As we all know, in the catholic church, even if heterosexuals get married and cant consumate for whatever reason, the marriage can be anulled. For those of you who do not know, consumation is the union of the reproductive organs of male and female. All animals do this in nature in order to mate and continue their species. So when Kirk Cameron (the actor of growing pains ) stated being gay is unnatural. He was perfectly correct because it is unnatural to use the digestive system as a sexual pleasure zone. The digestive system was designed by nature to take in nourishment
and to excrete waste products. It was not designed to do what gay men and women have decided to use it for. Only the reproductive organs of a male and femal were designed to fit todgether in a perfect union by nautre. This is true for every animal species. By nature, this union is a natural impossibility for two gay men and for two gay woman. Only men and women can come together in a perfect union sexually designed by nature and continue our beautiful species. So if gays want to get married, so be it. They will never consumate their marriage or ever have what a man and a woman can have that was designed by nature. So yes it is very unnatural to be gay.
Thank God!
Daughter of Eve continues to prove my points and show she has no concept of the world that exists outside of the world she has created for herself that has been authorized to be the truth authorized by those that gave themselves the authority to do so. And continues showing she has an issue with people that she views as different than her, even though she says she doesn't, simply for the fact she is here and that she views other human beings as something different and less than herself and they are not allowed to play in the same sandbox and should be looked upon as though there are consequences to being different than her and she has the right to say so because she is constitutionally protected to set herself apart and above others, if she so chooses, because she comes from authority, authorized by authorities that authorized themselves to give authority over her that she chose to allow. And she has chosen to follow someone and has been told by authority what that someone said even though that someone never said anything about it and if it was such a big of a deal as she is making it out to be, there would have been extensive dialog on the issue.
Does it make you feel good to view other human beings as less moral, inferior, destructive, consequences to their being, not living in truth, etc., etc.?
DoE,
Does it make you feel superior to believe that you know the truth and that there are no other truths other than yours?
How do you think the world would be today if every single human being that ever lived procreated?
What eliasm wrote in #148 is correct. On Oct 3, 2011 NOM posted a blog criiticizing Rep. Jared Polis and his partner fro creating a motherless family. What a callous way to welcome a child into the world!
If you think that every child deserves a mother and a father, maybe you should prevail upon Brian Brown to spend more time with his 7 (soon to be eight) instead of traveling the nation and fighting equality
I meant to say 7 children, soon to be 8.
@eliasasm 164-166: You are right that those goals are not met merely by prohibiting same-sex marriage, but they are met if we also prohibit creating people by any means other than marriage, joining the marriage's own sperm and egg.
We should not equate anyone's right to procreate with someone of the same sex to their right to procreate with someone of the other sex. Instead of being allowed and approved, it should be prohibited with a federal law.
(My 6-year old Egg and Sperm law proposal doesn't prohibit sperm and egg donation or anything that is currently done, it just prohibits new stuff that doesn't even join a natural sperm and egg, but we could prohibit all unmarried procreation and just prohibit same-sex procreation. That'd be purer and stop more unethical practices, but more disruptive to the status quo.
Susan Rosenthal said:
"What a callous way to welcome a child into the world!"
What a callous way to create and raise a child.
There is no justification for what they did. None. Your attempt at deflecting from that does not excuse the moral wrong of that behavior.