10 Apr

The Real End Game of the Gay Marriage Debate [Reader Post]

                                       

supreme-court-gay-marriage-detail

Curse you, Adam Corolla! As my faithful readers know (thank you, both of you!) I generally only weigh in on topics where I can find an angle that somebody smarter than me hasn’t already written. This is another one of those ideas that I’d been kicking around for a while but never got around to writing, and Mr. Corolla beat me to the punch. In a recent podcast he pointed out that Gay Marriage is hardly an end point to the debate:

“It’ll be legalized, hopefully, and then you’ll think we’ll be done with it, and then they’ll say, ‘we want to get married at the Crystal Cathedral,'” Carolla said on a recent podcast. “And the guys at the Crystal Cathedral will go ‘no, we don’t agree with it, and according to our faith, a man doesn’t lie down with another man, and a chick who looks like a man doesn’t lay down with another human who drives a Subaru. We don’t condone this.’ There’s a gonna be a march, and then there’s gonna be a thing and it’s gonna go to the Supreme Court again. This much I know … there will be more fighting. it will continue.”

I raised the incrementalism argument when I wrote about this subject last summer, and now with the subject becoming bigger in the news I’m seeing more of the incrementalism that conservatives are rightly concerned about. Here was my take:

Gay marriage was a subject I had never really had an opinion about until around twelve years ago when I read Jesse Ventura’s first book, “Do I Stand Alone?” Mind you, back in 2000 Jesse was still a new governor in Minnesota and a breath of fresh air in the system, not the full time conspiracy theorist he’s become today. On the issue of gay marriage he looked at both sides, and his assertion was that it was wrong to discriminate against two consenting adults from legal benefits from a system that they have paid taxes into based on their gender preference. On the other side, the term “Marriage” has an important spiritual meaning in religions practiced by many Americans, and their views should be respected as well. His solution was civil unions – granting legal rights for gay couples while still respecting the people whose religious views would be offended.

This seems like a reasonable compromise for both sides, and one that I supported then and still continue to do so. In fact, contrary to the leftist notion that conservatives are opposed to “gay rights” polls show that the majority of Conservatives as well as Republicans support civil unions.

Now, this was an opinion that I adopted thirteen years ago, and it still is my opinion today. But look at how the public perception, and particularly in the mass media has “evolved” since that time. Back in 2000 my stance would be considered moderate to somewhat left of center1  in most quarters, depending on the person I’m standing next to. But today? The fact that I don’t wholeheartedly support “Marriage Equality“, or whatever the latest term is to make the leftist position sound centrist makes me some bigoted extremist who is probably ready to throw a white sheet over his head and burn rainbow painted crosses on Harvey Milk’s grave. I go into my arguments in a lot more depth at my link, but while I haven’t changed, the left certainly has. Each step where leftist thought is met “halfway” (or anywhere) automatically becomes the new center to them, and anything to the right of that new line is right wing extremism.

I laid out before two of my concerns as to how we’re already seeing negative impacts of recognizing gay marriage  -forcing gay marriage to be taught in schools, as opposed to trivialities like reading and writing, and in preventing children in foster homes from getting placed with families.

When conservatives raise the flag of what will be next down the road, such as redefining marriage for multiple partners, the left just tut-tuts about how they’re overreacting, just as they did when gay marriage was mentioned back in 2000. The problem is that California has already considered polygamy. Jeremy Irons also raised the touchy subject of this possibly leading to incestuous unions, which gets the same chuckle and a head shake reaction. But I ask, why not? Can someone from the left tell me where this issue will be 5-10 years from now? Does this end with “Marriage Equality”? or whatever you’re telling us is now the new center? I look at how our schools are infantilizing our kids today – suspensions for chewing a cookie shaped like a gun, or as a friend whose son is in the Maryland public school system recently told me, the horror of a teacher using a lighter for a science experiment resulted in notes being sent to all of the parents whose kids might have been traumatized by the event. When Baby Bob starts out in school if he calls another kid on the playground “gay”2 is he going to be forced into a modern leftist re-education camp known as “sensitivity training?” And as his parents, will Sister Babe and I also be held accountable for this vile hate speech coming from our child? Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but look at what’s happening up in Canada:

The Diversity Celebrators have their exquisitely sensitive antennae attuned for anything less than enthusiastic approval. Very quickly, traditional religious teaching on homosexuality will be penned up within church sanctuaries, and “faith-based” ancillary institutions will be crowbarred into submission. What’s that? I’m “scaremongering”? Well, it’s now routine in Canada, where Catholic schools in Ontario are obligated by law to set up Gay-Straight Alliance groups, where a Knights of Columbus hall in British Columbia was forced to pay compensation for declining a lesbian wedding reception, and where the Rev. Stephen Boisson wrote to his local paper, objecting to various aspects of “the homosexual agenda” and was given a lifetime speech ban by the Alberta “Human Rights” Tribunal ordering him never to utter anything “disparaging” about homosexuals ever again, even in private. Although his conviction was eventually overturned by the Court of Queen’s Bench after a mere seven-and-a-half years of costly legal battles, no Canadian newspaper would ever publish such a letter today. The words of Chief Justice Burger would now attract a hate-crime prosecution in Canada, as the Supreme Court in Ottawa confirmed only last month.

Of course, if you belong to certain approved identity groups, none of this will make any difference. The Rev. Al Sharpton, who famously observed that Africans of the ancient world had made more contributions to philosophy and mathematics than all “them Greek homos,” need not zip his lips – any more than Dr. Bilal Philips, the Toronto Islamic scholar who argues that homosexuals should be put to death, need fear the attention of Canada’s “human rights” commissions. But for the generality of the population this will be one more subject around which one has to tiptoe on ever-thinner eggshells.

And back to Adam Corolla’s original point, at what point does any church that refuses to perform a gay marriage ceremony get labeled a “Hate Group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center? Leftists like to claim that their goal is to have the state out of the business of marriage. While I think many of them actually believe that, I also think that the ultimate goal is the opposite – to get the church out of the business of marriage. Many leftists follow different religious faiths to various degrees, but at the end of the day Leftism is their one true God that will have no other Gods before it.

So my question to all of the gay marriage proponents today is this: If I adopt your position today and accept it as the new center how are you going to “evolve” over the next decade to turn anyone holding your opinion today into hateful right wing bigotry? Will we see any clergy on college campuses who don’t endorse gay marriage attacked in the same manner that’s happening at George Washington University today? Will Polygamy be perfectly acceptable as the recent article in The Economist argues? Scroll down to the comments if you want to start reading some ideas that are just downright creepy. I’ll be curious to see where the leftist feminist groups will weigh in over the practice of polygamy that is so harmful to women. Or do we start normalizing pedophilia in the name of tolerance?

Do my last few ideas sound over the top and kind of crazy? I’ll be the first to admit that they do, but a decade ago I would have said the same about today’s debate. I like to be proactive, so assuming I give in and surrender to this new normal, I have one question for all of you leftists reading this. Can I just get a heads up as to why you’re going to hate me again a decade from now?

1. For my more conservative readers, I’ve lived in the DC area since 1999. If my civil unions idea seems radical leftist to you keep in mind in this town everyone half a step to the right of Michael Moore thinks their views are mainstream and moderate.

2. And no, we’re not going to be encouraging Baby Bob to call anyone gay or any other forms of name calling. From what I hear this is still a favored taunt used by little kids on the playground, and I’m guessing if gay becomes an outlawed term kids will find other colorful insults to hurl at one another.

This entry was posted in Gay Marriage, Law, Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 at 6:05 am
| 3,032 views

337 Responses to The Real End Game of the Gay Marriage Debate [Reader Post]

  1. Tom says: 301

    @Redteam:

    I find it most interesting that this thread now has 255 comments and no homosexual person has been able to state what the ‘end game’ is.

    Cute. I love people who think they’re clever when they’re being obvious.

    So who are the homosexual persons on this thread, by the way? And why is a person who refuses to answer the simple question “why do you care who marries whom” accusing others of evasion?

    ReplyReply
  2. Tom says: 302

    @Redteam:

    We know that two men/women having sex together is not normal. No children can be produced

    You believe sex is solely for procreation? Wow, you must lead an exciting life.

    ReplyReply
  3. Richard Wheeler says: 303

    @Redteam: That would be Sister Bees and I ask Why was this post any better early than late and why won’t you answer Tom’s simple questions?

    Sex only for procreation? Does ANYONE believe that?

    ReplyReply
  4. Tom says: 304

    @Redteam:

    There is not a chance I would read that book, I already know the intent, I don’t have to read about it. As long as the teacher’s union control the classrooms, a hell of a lot of ‘indoctrination’ is taking place.

    So the truth, sort of, finally comes out. The reason you care: hysteria and cartoonish fear-mongering, all to justify prejudice. And to think, it took Retire05, clearly the one with balls in your in your little homophobic two-step, to actually lay it out on the line.

    And for the record, I honestly couldn’t be less surprised, because you honestly couldn’t be more predictable.

    ReplyReply
  5. MataHarley says: 305

    @Redteam: The only reason I ask is that in the exchange of ideas on a blog, referring to others intelligence (which I have done myself at times) rarely improves the quality of the discussion.

    Perhaps you should direct that observation to the subject person at hand, who specializes in insults and crude/rude remarks to all who dare hold a different view as the norm. After years of being subject to tired one’s “writing style”, I can honestly say that I rarely care to visit here anymore, let along pen authored posts. Little do to with her. But unfortunately, with her multi-daily prolific and consistently vile presence, that low bar of debate style draws equally low value mentality participators in larger numbers over time. I truly miss many of the old participants and higher caliber debates. Most, like me, simply don’t have patience or appetite for this crap as a daily diet, and have moved on. Me? I come here when my real life allows a brief reprieve, and a foray into the absurd and conspiratorial. I can pick up on real news via headlines. I feel no need to discuss them most of the time. At least not here.

    In the blog world, often you are judged by the “company” you are forced to keep. And far too often, there are “conservatives” here that I find are more a black mark on what is really conservative…

    … which brings me to this.

    If Retire05′s positions are ‘faux conservative’, then what would a real conservative’s position be on homosexuality?

    Wrong question, and wrong debate. In fact, conservative opinion and feelings about homosexuality doesn’t have a place in determining whether application of federal laws are equal and Constitutional.

    Since when did justification of federal intrusion into our private lives become subject to what any citizen personally considers moral or approves of? And perhaps if you think about that statement a bit more thoroughly, then you’d come to that yourself. Using that same analogy, Larry Flint should have lost his 1st Amendment lawsuit.

    That’s what theory on our founding is all about – protecting basic human rights not what we agree with, but what we don’t.

    So exit the personal moral and religious perspective. The right questions to ask yourself are:

    1: Does the Constitution grant powers to the federal government for defining and/or controlling marriage, and limiting that definition to select citizens for any reason?

    Oddly enough, such a novel idea of the government being able to define who can, and cannot, marry wasn’t high on the Founders/Framers list. My guess is they didn’t think such a personal decision should be enshrined in the Bill of Rights, because they would never imagine the central government would meddle in religious rites and choices of marriage partners.

    IMHO, the same should go for State Constitutions.

    I have this argument with a conservative friend of mine who believe that without the government involved with marriage and licensing, the family unit culture would fall apart. Yet the family unit culture of this country, and throughout history, has actually declined with government interference. Interracial marriages didn’t destroy it. And in fact, it was yet another government creation – divorce – that has been a large contributor to families becoming single parents. Prior to the mid 20th century, divorces were very much frowned upon.

    2: Ask yourself, what is the history of US or State governments deciding to get into the marriage license game? And why? Of what benefit was it to them to do so? Remember, this preceded all the financial bennies that resulted with legislation over time.

    When the Church of England wielded power over the American Colonies, “marriages” were simply a publicized announcement in local rags. Altho that bastion of freedom loving types in Mass had more formal mandates earlier than most. But in the 1700s, NC wanted to exert more control with the explicit reasoning to prohibit interracial marriages. These was prevalent thru the States for quite some time.

    What it comes down to is that government stepped in to the marriage license business in order to deny what they felt was morally incompatible with society. And when government starts doing that, we’re all doomed. Hence the reason I scratch my head at “conservatives” who are willing to deny marriage “rights” to some, because of moral reasons, and don’t rail against the idea that government has any such right at all.

    Fact is, conservatives and the LBGT types should all be standing shoulder-to-shoulder, demanding that government butt out of everyone’s personal business. Benefits should not be doled out based on marital status. If they are going to give tax breaks for dependents, that shouldn’t be dependent upon marital status either.

    Instead, all the pols are happy to watch each other tear into each other over who is morally correct. Idiotic, since it’s the total antithesis to what small “g” government conservatives are supposed to believe. But instead they are sucked into looking like fools, supporting discrimination just because it suits their moral beliefs.

    As far as your questions for “legalities” and how they are handled. Well, Redteam, “common law” marriages have been dealt with in litigation for centuries. It didn’t require the courts see a government document to decide cases… only whether the relationship, in it’s term and consummation, required some action about a perceived injustice that had to be decided in court.

    As far as the feds and states go… remove all the financial byproducts that are related to marital status, and that legality goes away. I doubt the feds or States would give a hoot about polygamy if there wasn’t welfare or tax revenue losses attached to the same. Why would they?

    Without federal (or State) involvement in “marriage”, anyone can appoint powers of attorney, guardianship, inheritance, to another without the government giving the stamp of approval to that person, as it all rises to the status of being contractually binding in a court of law – all morality aside. Just as it should be.

    ReplyReply
  6. Redteam says: 306

    @Tom: Tom, it does no good to answer your questions because I still get accused of not answering them. You also did not answer my question. We can go back and forth all day on that if it makes you happy.

    ReplyReply
  7. Redteam says: 307

    @Tom: Back to ‘thinking’ you know what I’m thinking?

    ReplyReply
  8. Redteam says: 308

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Sex only for procreation? Does ANYONE believe that?

    Did someone say that? Where?

    ReplyReply
  9. Redteam says: 309

    @Tom

    : So the truth, sort of, finally comes out. The reason you care: hysteria and cartoonish fear-mongering,

    Wow, back to ‘thinking’ you know what I’m ‘thinking’ because I damn sure didn’t say any of that. You have a vivid imagination, something that you probably find useful in your sexual preferences.

    ReplyReply
  10. Tom says: 310

    @Redteam:

    You have refused to answer the most basic question that’s been put to you multiple times. And anyone who reads this thread can see that.

    ReplyReply
  11. Tom says: 311

    @Redteam:

    : Back to ‘thinking’ you know what I’m thinking?

    You’ve been invited multiple times to share what you’re thinking, and you’ve refused. So I don’t feel bad resorting to speculation. It’s not like you’re that difficult to figure out. You like to nibble at the edges and make it sound like you have some deep intellectual reason for your beliefs, one that’s too recondite to articulate to the masses, but has a lot to do with dictionaries and word meanings apparently.

    ReplyReply
  12. Redteam says: 312

    @MataHarley: Very interesting, I’m headed to a ball game now but will respond when I get back.

    ReplyReply
  13. George Wells says: 313

    @MataHarley #305:

    Excellent point on gov. butting out. But I have yet to see any of the “opposition” concede even the tiniest point. Evidently, Papal infallability has undergone a “trickle-down” into the party of “No,” as their sense of their own perfection allows them no room for compromise.

    ReplyReply
  14. Richard Wheeler
    one day curiosity will cause you problems,
    I’m the one who said that the first 50s comment where better,
    because there was a variety of opinions,, interesting to read,
    George Wells was directing this POST,
    IT came out like a CLASSIC MUSIC ARRANGEMENT, and turned into a HIP HOP
    at some point, and than a JAZ PROGRESSIVE, to swing into AN HEAVENLY HARP ANGELIC SOUND,
    to slowly pick up the riddel of METALLIC RYMES shocking each music NOTES, toward a CABAL
    OF SOUNDS HITTING EACH OTHER, like a hellish big bang
    crashing on the crowd,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  15. Tom says: 315

    @Redteam:

    You have a vivid imagination, something that you probably find useful in your sexual preferences.

    Har, har, har. Is this another ham-handed attempt on your part to assert I’m a homosexual? Are you one of those people who hates homosexuality so much, you spend all your time thinking about it and obsessively seeing gay sex everywhere? I always found that to be very interesting.

    ReplyReply
  16. Richard Wheeler says: 316

    @MataHarley: Mata Extremely well written.
    Whoever came up with “irreconcilable differences” as a grounds for divorce did the concept of family no favors. In 1950’s New York only grounds were infidelity and insanity.P. I.’s had more business than lawyers. Divorces were scarce.

    Ms.Bees Enjoyed your 314. Curiosity is a good thing. Unless you’re a cat.

    ReplyReply
  17. MataHarley says: 317

    @Redteam… EXCELLENT! Having a real life is absolutely essential to sanity and perspective! Enjoy

    ReplyReply
  18. MATA
    yes I recognize your style now,
    very good, we did not figure that the GOVERNMENT HAD NO BUSYNESS IN IT,
    we miss that one and only most important one,
    we are retarded big time ,
    it took us 318 comments to get the solution,
    what took you so long?
    bye

    ReplyReply
  19. Richard Wheeler
    I was just kidding you.
    trying to change your mood,
    but you are a cat
    bye

    ReplyReply
  20. MataHarley says: 320

    @George Wells, you should have stopped after the first “good point” sentence. Your “but, but!” about opposition views, or changing the Catholic Church views, goes into the same problem with the very so called “conservatives” you debate.

    You, as part of the LBGT community, may want to demand equal government handouts. And that cannot be contested if you want equal application of law. If you don’t like the Catholic Church beliefs, then don’t be a member. Find your own “membership” elsewhere with like kind believers.

    However you can not demand those handouts, or changes in organized religious beliefs, and then proclaim to be a fiscal conservative (or man without an agenda) that wants minimal government intrusion – or not functioning with an agenda to effect change to suit you, personally – simultaneously.

    So pick a side… you want the handouts under current law? Sure… I agree that, for equal application, you should get them.

    But do I consider current law Constitutional? Or do I see you as small government and fiscally responsible, that you want this? Nope. In that case, you are just another citizen that thinks the government owes you tax payer dollars based on a personal status for some reason or another.

    And that makes you no fiscal conservative….

    As for changing the Catholic Church. Good effin’ luck…. Why waste your time?

    ReplyReply
  21. Redteam
    hi,
    keep your eye on the ball, all the time,

    ReplyReply
  22. Tom
    did you say you’re an homosexual?
    it’s okay , we are right at the right POST, to debate with you, for a change,
    I was wondering who would come to partner with
    George Wells,
    BROTHER BOB would call it the END GAME,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  23. MataHarley says: 323

    @Richard Wheeler:, agreed about nonreconciable differences. But there is still no denying that without govt intrusion in “marriage”, there would be no need for the same into circumstances for “divorce”.

    What the central govt grants, they can take away. A major flaw that is missing in this entire debate. Conservatives are on the wrong side, but for all of the wrong reasons. The LBGT movement suffers from the same… ruled by emotions and not Constitutional theory.

    To accept that govt can “grant” marriage is to also accept they can grant denial of such. The Supremes have disagreed, but without specifics, in prior rulings under the 14th. But since they have not (thus far) had to rule on more specific arguments, it hasn’t come up.

    The problem lies in application of Constitutional theory of governmental power.

    ReplyReply
  24. MataHarley says: 324

    Ms. Bees, unfortunately all can blur the lines of Constitutional powers, leaving them blinded by emotions to the obvious arguments. What disappoints me is that so few “conservatives” get to this point on their own. In a bizarre twist, I’ve only found friendly voices to the same argument on the liberal side.

    ReplyReply
  25. I’m watching KATY BOUDIN former cop murderer hired in the COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
    as professor, and the journalist his name is WATER he is with O”REILLY,
    he talk to her and she refuse to talk,
    than OH IRONY, a POLICE OFFICER tell WATER to leave, so
    WATER talk to him,
    and he repeat asking him to leave,
    weird is in it?

    ReplyReply
  26. Richard Wheeler says: 326

    @ilovebeeswarzone: I pay you a compliment then you write this crap.??

    ReplyReply
  27. MATA HARLEY
    funny IS IN IT,
    but we all where lead by George Wells quite fast rolling the comments,
    he did a good job at it,
    but we concentrate only on the GAI movement demand,
    George Wells should have known that fact and told us, it’s his fight,
    not ours after all,
    he was uninformed where he should have been , so to mentioned it to all and remind us all,
    well everyone acted as if they knew it was not , and not because of BIGOT,
    because they knew it was not right, and George took it that the gais where not wanted
    by CONSERVATIVES, which is false now ,after the ATTENTION HE HAD HERE FROM MANY CONSERVATIVES.
    the proof is in the number of comments he had 326 by now,
    he should be proud of it, not every one succeed
    such a number,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  28. Richard Wheeler
    what crap? you meant what CAT?
    oh my, you better change your mood, it’s really crapy
    in french CRAPEAU, that is a big FROG uglyer ,
    that’s where the word “crap ” come from? I guess
    well I did acknowledge the compliment,
    AND I GAVE YOU ONE, what is wrong with being call a cat?
    you see negative and I saw the nice sides of cat,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  29. MataHarley says: 329

    Bees, Richard Wheeler is speaking of your comments to Tom… calling him a homosexual… in your comment #322. And, of course, that you meant that comment as a personal insult.

    Tom, or anyone’s sexual status, is not at issue. What is at issue is whether the government has any constitutional right to be in the “marriage license” business, in order to dole out tax payer dollars.

    BTW, as an aside, George Wells has behaved civilly for the most party, and delving in pertinent facts by his interpretation… and generally delivering in a eloquent manner. That’s whether you agreed or not. He only went into the guttural commentary when led by your faux conservative bud… tiresome. Thus how the caliber of the most vocal (and obnoxious of…) participants can affect the value of information exchanged.

    However he does have the chance, based on my comment above, to straighten out if he is pursing an “agenda’ or what he considers base conservatives beliefs. I say give him time to ponder, and respond.

    ReplyReply
  30. MATA Harley
    Richard Wheeler should know I was kidding TOM,
    HE is not an HOMOSEXUAL, but Redteam also tease him after he came
    to question him agressivly, on a comment,
    so RICHARD protect TOM, and get mad at me for saying that hey,
    okay he drop into my list of friends, a few notch

    ReplyReply
  31. MATA HARLEY,
    I know George Wells did a good job, he took over the lead on that POST,
    and there would not have been so many answers if it was not for the commenters,
    he was feeding and they knew it and played the games of opinions,
    obnoctious me? maybe a bit on a few pitchs of George, it had to be noted sometimes,
    that’s part of the opinion,
    are you getting too serious so to loose your humorous side, you have been away too long,
    come back
    bye

    ReplyReply
  32. MataHarley says: 332

    Bees, based on the wayward arguments of many “conservatives” here more often than I care to remember, I have also found myself having to defend liberals. And, in fact, despite disagreeing with what they say, I can’t argue that some of them put forth their 1st Amendment right with far more civility, and substance, than offered by the opposition on many occasions.

    Perhaps you need to evaluate who is your cyber “friends” and why…. Delivery is everything, and it’s not always about a shared base belief. Personally I find myself more comfortable with those of opposing views, simply for the caliber and intelligence/civility of their opposition arguments, then I do supposed “conservatives” peers, in present company.

    Disagreement does not make for incompatibility. It makes for stimulated and enlightening debate and evolving perspectives. If disagreement were the deciding factor, I wouldn’t get along with many members of my own family.

    ReplyReply
  33. MATA
    yes I see what you mean, I do take the side of CONSERVATIVES WHO are attack
    by the other side,
    they are okay with you but come in as accusing instead of stating their opinion,
    each CONSERVATIVES have their personal way of repelling their attack,
    I am not the judge here, I am not perfect myself and they put up with me,
    remember? you did it too,
    who am I to question personality on other,
    I am one of them, and from what I see, it’s so ugly on the other side,
    we need to stick together and face those who attack us with lies, they come
    we are not asking them to come, if they want to insult one of them,
    they get the same as they give other,
    and by the way TOM is arrogant in his way to comment, most of the time insulting,
    so he can taste a bit of it to feel it.
    I don’t feel I am too much negative, maybe I’ll recheck my behavior and correct it if I over do.
    bye

    ReplyReply
  34. MATA HARLEY
    you know the # girls abducted,
    now at GRETA on FOX, there are neighbors who saw the girls
    outside naked on a leach and collar, on the ground outside once
    and call the police who never came WHY, I guess it was too wild to believe,
    it make me so sad to hear that, and what they went through, in 10 years,
    the guys should be hang on a highest tree for the 10 years they abuse the girls, beast

    ReplyReply
  35. Redteam says: 335

    @Tom:

    Har, har, har. Is this another ham-handed attempt on your part to assert I�m a homosexual? Are you one of those people who hates homosexuality so much, you spend all your time thinking about it and obsessively seeing gay sex everywhere? I always found that to be very interesting.

    See what I mean about your imagination?

    ReplyReply
  36. George Wells says: 336

    @MataHarley re #320:

    “changing the Catholic Church views?” Where did that come from?

    My #313: “Papal infallibility has undergone a “trickle-down” was a comment aimed at MY experience with Republicans who refuse to concede anything, ever.

    The intended comparison between the now-abandoned invention of “Papal infallibility” and the apparent adoption by the so-called “Tea-Party” of the precept that Republicans are ALWAYS right and Democrats are ALWAYS wrong was perhaps not made clear, and for that I apologize, but the similarity between the two is something I tried to express. The comment had nothing at all to do with changing Catholic Church views.

    “Their sense of their own perfection allows them no room for compromise.” was a comment on the intransigence of the Tea Party representatives who evidently mean to overturn the time-honored tradition of compromise in government. In the absence of compromise, I am concerned that government will collapse. That’s not something I would want to see.

    When Obama threw out: “I’ll give you X-amount of dollars for every dollar of tax increases you give me” the Republicans SHOULD have called his bluff. Make him put something of HIS on the table…burn HIS constituents. It doesn’t matter that he could or could not deliver. But the Republicans had signed that silly pledge that left no room for compromise on taxes, and they LOST a golden opportunity. EVERYBODY should be sorry for that.

    Thank you for the “equal protection” endorsement. I think that Scalia made the same argument when he wrote his Lawrence dissent. He asked: If gay sex was decriminalized, what possible justification could be applied to deny gay marriage rights? Criminalization was the only finger in the dyke…so-to-speak.

    “But do I consider current law Constitutional? Or do I see you as just another citizen that thinks the government owes you tax payer dollars based on a personal status for some reason or another. Nope. In that case, you are just another citizen that thinks the government owes you tax payer dollars based on a personal status for some reason or another. ”

    Sorry, but you lost me there. If you are planning to accept Social Security, doesn’t that make you equally “just another citizen that thinks the government owes you tax payer dollars based on a personal status for some reason or another.” Don’t you see YOURSELF as a fiscal conservative/small government person? “Tit for Tat.”

    As far as “constitutional” is concerned, there are a whole raft of state and federal laws that are or should be “unconstitutional,” and these are constantly being challenged in the courts and by referendum. The results of those processes are what matters, not whether YOUR impression of what the “founding Fathers” meant 220 years ago or MY impression of the same is the more accurate.

    ReplyReply
  37. George Wells says: 337

    @Redteam:

    Here we are six months later, and the “Marriage Equality” movement has harvested most of the “low-hanging fruit” – the “blue” states with Democratic governors and legislatures have delivered, and now the goal is being further pursued in the courts. While many conservatives lament Justice Kennedy’s Windsor opinion as having provided legally compelling encouragement to the gay marriage argument, it is really Justice Scalia’s ten-year-old prediction that has poisoned the well from which gay marriage opponents drink.

    Scalia reasoned that the continued criminalization of homosexual sex was the ONLY legal thing preventing gays from marrying. He asked that if gay sex is legalized, “what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution?” He was, as dramatically as possible, making the point that the answer is “NOTHING.”

    Can it be that Justice Scalia’s logic is really this simple, this elegant? He was right in his analysis of the consequences of the Lawrence v. Texas decision, and he was still bitter about it when he wrote his dissent for Windsor. In his Windsor dissent, Scalia warned us that in spite of Kennedy’s assurances to the contrary (Kennedy having deliberately NOT articulated a “right-to-gay-marriage”) we should not be fooled, and that we should “wait for the other shoe to drop.” And of course, the other shoe IS dropping. Yes, in part with Kennedy’s encouragement, but also with Scalia’s. In the recent Federal court decisions affirming the right to gay marriage, Scalia’s dissents have been cited as often and as effectively as have Kennedy’s decisions. By the time several different circuit courts of appeal have decided gay marriage cases, and certainly, if and when different circuit courts have reached different conclusions, this issue will be resolved once and for all by the Supreme Court. I can’t wait to see how Justice Scalia applies his vice-gripping logic to the question of the constitutionality of gay marriage, now that the question of the legality of gay sex is settled law.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>