Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, an openly homosexual man, has ruled against California’s Prop.8. The Gay community of San Francisco doesn’t think that there is a conflict of interest or that being openly homosexual was an influencing factor.
Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise – or advertise – his orientation.
Californians held a referendum on gay marriage after the Supreme Court voted for legalization of gay marriage. Prop. 8 ruled that marriage was to be between a man and a woman.
California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.
Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.
Walker, however, found it violated the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses while failing “to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”
“Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” the judge wrote in his 136-page ruling.
He also said proponents offered little evidence that they were motivated by anything other than animus toward gays — beginning with their campaign to pass the ban, which included claims of wanting to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school.
“Proposition 8 played on the a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual,” Walker wrote.
Walker heard 13 days of testimony and arguments since January during the first trial in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married.
Walker is a Republican that was nominated by Reagan, but his nomination was held up by gay activists, he was later appointed by H.W. Bush.
He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, but his nomination was held up for two years in part because of opposition from gay rights activists. As a lawyer, he helped the U.S. Olympic Committee sue a gay ex-Olympian who had created an athletic competition called the Gay Olympics.
Walker is a Republican. He said he joined the party while at Stanford University during the Vietnam War protests, and spent two years clerking for a judge appointed by Richard Nixon.
Currently, Gays can only marry in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Washington, DC. Walker has asked both sides to submit paperwork by Friday so that he can determine whether to allow marriage during the appeals process.
Legislating from the bench has been considered a tactic of the Left, this is a bit different since Walker is a registered Republican.
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
First, I don’t have a problem with “gay” marriage, let the fools have at it. And I stick by my earlier posts that spending time on the social issues like this only helps the left.
BUT, to this layman the issue here is one of the 10th amendment, that means the states and the people have the right to address this. Clearly this judge and all like him need to be rounded up and retired.
Somebody once said, let the “gays” marry and in two or three generations there wouldn’t be any democrats left in this country.
I don’t have any problem with gay marriage per se (why should straight people be the only ones miserable). What I DO have a problem with is a judge who clearly should have recused himself from even hearing this case! And why should one judge be permitted to override the votes of 7 million citizens of California?
First off, being a queer isn’t a right, you can be anything you want that isn’t against the law. Who cares.
Marriage is a license issued by the State according to social norms.
But for sure, being queer, it’s not a Constitutional right, nor is a right to be a plumber in the Constitution. What is so hard for lefturds to figure out.
I don’t have a problem with gay marraige but i think the law should still come down to the vote of the people. if the people voted against then it should be handle in another vote not rammed through by judges.
Surprise, Surprise! A gay judge rules in favor of fellow gays. Think he’s trying to score a little? Gays keep trying to proclaim they’re just like everyone else. Well, they’re not.
I have only a “problem” in being one of those sticklers for adhering to the definition of words. “Progressives” (Anti-Constitutionalist’s) are constantly re-defining what society has long accepted to be, and creating Rights out of thin air.
Gay, progressive ,discriminating just to name 3.
For over 10,000 years of human history, in every tribe, clan, city, state, culture, country, religion, language, and race… the word “marriage” in ALL it’s translations was (and always will be) “The formalized pairing of a man and a woman”.
I SO remember the 70’s and 80’s when the homosexuals (we had a relative-by-marriage who owned Tommy’s Flowers on Polk St. in SanFran)…would scream “You’re arguing slippery-slope about giving us “equal rights”, when the LAST thing we want is what you breederz call marriage…Ick!”…
Well, my dad was right, when he would mumble back: “That’s why we’re fighting it now, because that is indeed your final goal.”
I’m gonna start calling my brothers “Grandma” (all 3), and cats will henceforth be known as gorillas. Then I’ll pay off politicians, and work to elect judges who agree with me to make it a “Right” of mine to force ALL OF YOU HATERZ to accept and use my terms. I’ll call you derogatory names in the meantime, and force schools to teach your children my “enlightened” ways, just to wear you down to the point of capitulation.
In the meantime, I need to go to the “dump”* in my “train”* and buy some “hammers”* to put in my “cornflakes”*.
*If you’re confused, you must hate me.
Just goes to proove an assertion many of us have been making…
There are Progresive Republicans.
Just because this Federal Judge is/was a republican, and ruled this way… with his explanation, proves a point. Republicans are not monolithic and united in ideology the way democrats are. Generalizations are usually bad, but the two parties are not ideologically equal.
This Federal Judge is part of the problem the Tea Party movement is rising against. Federal Government over-reach and judicial fiat. The Federal Court system is broken and twisted that it has made the judicial branch more powerful of the three and most powerful over the populace.
The courts are a tool of the democrats and have been for 50 years. They can’t get their agenda forward by popular support, so they force it on everyone via the court. But this will ensure the left/progressives demise in my opinion.
We are seeing people stir and grow angry because they’ve finally started to have enough of it and if it can keep growing, all of this dictating by Federal fiat against the will of the people will become unhinged.
At least that is my hope.
In the continual push or train wreck of everything “Progressive”, one of the tenets is to have the courts, the Executive, and the legislature consolidate all power within the federal government at every opportunity; thereby, the Progressives neutralize the power of the states and the people, while building an ever more powerful federal government that will be a form of tyranny to be manipulated by whatever type of Demagogue or dictator that can seize power.
States are now in the process of surrendering that power, the insignificant cultural issues like gay marriage, issues that should be decided at the state level through devices like the referendum a ‘Democratic Vehicle’ that is only used in only a few states, are only subterfuges for an ever tightening ligature around the necks of Americans and the Constitution.
Personally, I find the thought of plugging up the judicial system while the divorce courts struggle with the complex nature and enigma of who gets ‘screwed’ in homosexual divorces to be an intriguing and entertaining issue that will forced to take the mockery and absurdity of heterosexual divorce into the sublime to be Progressive and maintain parity or is it parody of homosexual divorce. The gay divorce reality shows will be entertaining for a season or two and there will be a lackluster movie or two and then the divorce lawyers will continue to grind out their despicable trade of draining off the resources of a whole new class of victims; but the precedent and its acquisition of power directed by the bench will be in place while we laugh at the gays being devoured in the coliseum of divorce court and the whole destruction of states’ rights and power will have been largely decided over emotionally charged and silly issues like gay marriage.
Is it no wonder why so many lawyers are Progressive Socialists?
This is seen by many, including the judge, as a civil right – which is unconstitutional to be left up to popular vote. The rights of the minority cannot be overruled by the majority. How can the government decide not to issue a contract between two people, based on gender, without calling it discrimination?
Personally, I’m for issuing Civil Unions to every couple – gay and straight. Let churches issue Marriages. Then everyone is treated equally under the Law.
For those who argue that Civil Unions are equal to Marriages, there shouldn’t be a problem with my proposition.
In case you were wondering, the sculpture depicts Zues as he came to earth as an eagle to beguile Gannymeade, the most handsome youth on earth, before abductig him to his den and performing bizarre acts of depravity and homosexual love on the innocent youth. Those ancient Greeks had erotic fantasies that must make gay porn seem boring.
I may be called culturally challenged by saying this, but did someone knock off the kids’s pee pee?
@Buffalobob:
LMAO! I guess Zeus pecked his pecker!
(feel free to delete this if it’s too much!)
Bob, the fingers are also missing from his right hand; it’s unfair to blame Zeus without an investigation, 2400 years exposes the sculpture to many souvenir hunters with varying tastes. I think the pecker issue is small part of the overall picture.
I don’t have a problem with homosexuality in general. People are allowed to pursue their own happiness. What I do have a problem with is the in-your-face attitudes of some who wish to push their agenda onto the populace as a whole, against the overwhelming opinion and desires of that populace.
The institution of marriage has been around for millenia, and has been defined historically as a union between a man and a woman. The homosexuals in the country who are out front on this issue wish to tear down this historical institution for the stated reasoning of their ‘civil rights’. The majority in this country actually agree that homosexuals should be allowed to engage in civil unions.
What it boils down to is the homosexuals are arguing for a word, while their opponents are arguing in favor of keeping an institution with historical precedent alive and well.
@johngalt:
That historical precedence was present when blacks and whites weren’t allowed to marry, too. Still the institution survived, and is IMO, better for it.
I still fail to see how someones’ marriage could have any effect whatsoever on anyone else’s. When I look into a mirror, I only see myself.
And what do you say to my friend from Singapore, who’s partner is a US Citizen, who cannot get citizen rights through their Civil Union? That’s clearly more than just a word.
@Cary
What you are stating, with your black/white example, is not one of historical precedence, but of racial bigotry. I was never taught during the times that I went to church long ago, that marriage must be between people of the same race, as well as the same sex. I don’t remember ever reading it in the bible either, but I must state as well that I haven’t read it entirely through either.
What you argue can also be applied to people marrying animals, people marrying more than one person at a time, people marrying teens or even preteens, and a host of other ‘marriage’ acts that haven’t even been conceived of yet.
It is not the union of the homosexuals that I have a problem with. It is the willful intent on the destruction of an institution purely for the sake of being able to call their union a ‘marriage’. I don’t care about gays in general, and in fact, have several friends and co-workers that are gay and I get along with them just fine without any prejudices or animosity towards them. This is an example of a minority of the populace willing their intent upon the population as a whole, and against the wishes of the population as a whole. It has nothing to do with civil rights, since as I have stated, most people are willing to allow for the ‘civil union’ of homosexuals, to include all the governmental “benefits” allowed to married individuals. So, as I have stated clearly, and Patvann has stated with sarcasm, they are merely fighting for a word. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for your friend, while I am not going to comment on their personal relationship since I know nothing of it, in general, legalized partnership(to include civil unions and marriage) can and are abused for the purposes of gaining citizenship rights, and as such, must be discussed in the wider topic of immigration and it’s reform. I understand your point, but your point brings into play more than just the topic of marriage and homosexuality.
This ruling when it hits the Supremes will fly into the garbage can, again. The precedent is in Kansas in 2005. Again the judicial arm is creating law.
I left both militaries when it was time to re-up. One on federally funded sex changes and the other on hidden homosexual behavior. Other reasons were rules of engagement from the UN and Nato. I left the Catholic Church because of the hypocracy of the clergy who openly recruited homosexuals to fill their ranks. Looks like i’m running from problems, but I will not lead men in a Caligula type atmosphere.
@johngalt:
I’m glad that you have such personal acceptance and goodwill towards the gay people in your life. The fact that so many Conservatives are asserting this sentiment tells me that we are a lot further along than we were 20 years ago, which is encouraging.
But you’ve changed the terms of the discussion from a legal one to a religious one. I have read enough of the Bible to discuss it in those terms, but I absolutely will not do so over a political issue. Because then it’s just about people’s beliefs, and people all over this country believe different things. Many support Gay Marriage, based on their religious beliefs. In fact, the Methodist, Lutheran, and Unitarian institutions have publicly declared support for such. I completley respect each person’s beliefs, and I urge anyone who thinks I’m eternally doomed for taking the position I do, to pray for me – it would be sincerely appreciated and welcome. However, it’s only the law that can be applied to each and every individual American. And I have already stated my position in regards to the law.
Pedophilia, bestiality, and incest are, in each and every case under our society and our laws, indicative of one or more types of abuse. Therefore, the comparison of a relationship between two human adults doesn’t apply.
I agree that marriage has been abused for immigration (including by some gays who marry the opposite sex for a fee – since they figure they’re never going to marry the one they love, why not make a buck?), but my point is an example of how the two terms aren’t equal. If they were, why aren’t tolerant straight people advocating the same thing I do in comment #11? I know it brings more into play than the topic at hand, but it still applies to the discussion. Besides, if my friend wanted to abuse the system to get in, there are plenty of women who’d be willing to function as his beard, for no fee. Trust me, he’s a good, honest, not to mention extremely talented, fellow. It pains me to see him having such a hard time.
@Cary
You are correct in not confusing religious opposition with political opposition in general for most discussions, however, here we have precedent of the institution within many differing religions, and the wider christian religion being adopted within our society at the founding of our country that identified marriage as between a man and a woman. So, due to this adoption of the institution from the christian religion into our society, we must discuss the religious aspect of it and it’s history, including pre-American history.
As I stated, I do not have, nor do many other conservatives have, a problem with identifying the unions of man/man or woman/woman as a civil union, up to and including all rights reserved by government(any level of government) for marriages alone. It is a just and equitable compromise for all parties involved and should be the goal of everyone involved to retain equity in society for all. To destroy the historical terminology of “marriage” as applied to unions between two people(specifically man/woman), for the sake of a minority party involved, does not seem equitable to me for society as a whole. In fact, it does ‘injure’ certain parties involved in that it imposes political ideology upon certain religions, and as such, creates a situation where government involves itself into religious actions. Again, the proponents of homosexual unions are fighting for a word, while opponents are fighting for the historical and religious institution of marriage.
As for your friend, I am sure that he is a good person, and personally, especially as I do not know him, I have no ill will intended towards him. As for using marriage to gain citizenship rights, that again is an issue that should be directed towards immigration discussions, especially as their is abuse of the system for that purpose. One step at a time, my friend, one step at a time.
Well, I DO have a problem with gay “marriage”: it isn’t marriage. The concept of marriage has been well-understood for centuries: one man, one woman, bound together for life by the laws of God and man. It’s been the essential family unit, the cornerstone of society, throughout all of human history. Who is this legally-educated dolt who believes his words can redefine the concept of marriage? For all I care, he can call up, “down”; he can call the sun, the “moon”. It doesn’t change the real meaning behind the words (but it DOES prove he’s an idiot).
That said, if gays want to have a means of ensuring they have legal ties to each other, encompassing all the duties, benefits, and obligations that are traditionally associated with marriage, I have no problem with that whatsoever. Call it a “legalized covenant relationship”. (I understand the term “civil union” has been offered and rejected; it appears the “gay-rights agitators” INSIST on the term “marriage”. At other blogs it’s been suggested that the religious overtones of the word “marriage” give a hint that the true target of these activists is RELIGION: if “marriage” can be defined by the state as “any two people who want to be legally recognized as a family unit” [and actually, once you permit THAT, why stop at two? If all it takes is “consenting adults” who “want to be legally recognized”, the permutations of the “new marriage” are awesome to contemplate…], and if there exist churches which regard homosexuality as a grave sin and refuse to perform marriages between gays, THEN we can foresee the State stepping in and declaring that those churches have violated the Civil Rights of those people. And THAT would mean federal lawsuits, fines, the stripping of tax-exempt status, and probably the demise of the organized church. All of that, just because waaay-Left social activists want to re-define one word.)
To sum up: I object to corrupting a word which has had the same meaning for centuries, and the concept of which is the foundation of our society. I’m NOT discriminating against gays, who presumably were “born that way” and had no choice in their sexual orientation. They can have THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS AND LEGAL STATUS that the word “marriage” implies, but they can’t use that word. Marriage has already been clearly defined as something else, and I don’t understand why “The Law”, which relies so heavily on “precedent” in other cases, will not accept the precedent here: Marriage=1 man + 1 woman.
@Cary
One thing I haven’t discussed is the obvious conflict of interest by the judge himself. There is no other way to look at that than the judge was wrong in seeing the case in his courtroom. He should have recused himself from the case. On the opposite side, any judge who voted for the proposition should also recuse him/her self from the case as well, otherwise, it becomes a situation where one side feels justice was not done in accordance with law, no matter the outcome.
@johngalt:
Which is why I think that the government should be out of the business of issuing marriages altogether. Let the individual churches decide who to grant or deny marriages to. As I said, some support it, some don’t. Let the government apply Civil Unions equally.
The rest of your statement, I believe I’ve covered my answer. I’m hoping not to get caught up in another endless discussion which prohibits me from doing the other things I need to do!
I appreciate your civility, and your intelligent, sensitive rhetoric, but I have to state my case and move on. I hope you understand.
@Cary
I do understand your case, and in fact, do believe that maybe the government only honoring ‘civil unions’, albeit allowing religious centers to issue them as marriages, is the answer. In that way, no one will have been discriminated against, or have had their religion and religious views trampled on by the other. If the stated case of the homosexual crowd is to have the same rights as the heterosexuals, they should welcome that idea with open arms, and then we can all get back to real problems such as the mounting deficit and outrageous spending and corruption in Congress and the WH. 😉
Now I have to get to work so I can help pay for someone else’s healthcare, lol. I enjoyed our discussion, Cary, and I thank you for it.
@johngalt:
I just mentioned this point to a gay friend of mine just a minute ago, and she agrees with you. Personally, I would think judge would be able to look at the law and prescribe it without bias as much as humanly possible. So what’s the cut off for the bias? What if they didn’t vote for it, but have strong religious ties to a church that vehemently opposes it? What if they aren’t gay, but have close family members who are? Clearly people on both sides of this issue agree with you on this point, but I feel that as long as the law is applied with regards to the Constitution, it shouldn’t matter. I’ll chalk it up to opinion.
@johngalt:
Good to know we can agree on something! 🙂
Just about the Gay Marriage thing.
I’ve always been for 100% equal rights under the law. In California we have “civil unions.” I’m in favor of that. But…
Marriage has endured as the oldest institution in human existence (thousands and thousands of years), because it serves the admirable purpose of binding men to their wives and children. Sort of enforces a minimum standard of male behavior. Marriage is a BFD, and this is engrained in all human civilizations.
Same gender marriage is not new — it has come and (quickly) gone, at various times, but it’s just been a historical curiosity.
What makes my point pretty well is the movie Sex in the City II. At the beginning, there’s a gay wedding. At one point, someone asks one of the newlyweds how on earth he is going to be able to be faithful to his new spouse. He replies that the fidelity thing only applies within the state where the nuptials occurred, with a big wink.
The average male partner in a “committed” gay relationship has 5 to 6 partners per year, outside the relationship. Straight people don’t tolerate that degree of casual infidelity, and the main beneficiaries are women and children.
I think that gay marriage will, indeed, degrade the BFD aspect of traditional marriage. It’s a race to the bottom, lowest common denominator thing. It’s still early, but I think that this is already happening in the Netherlands, less than 10 years after it became the first place to do this.
Just as a kind of interesting point of information:
Proposition 8 (“outlawing” gay marriage) passed with only 52% of the vote. Among white voters, the Proposition (outlawing gay marriage) would have been defeated, by a fairly wide margin. The reason the Proposition passed was largely because of black and Latino voters, who were overwhelmingly in favor (i.e. overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage).
Another curiosity is that the challenge to Proposition 8 was a partnership effort of super-lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies. Olson was the lead attorney for George W Bush in Bush v Gore, while Boies was the lead attorney for Gore in Bush v Gore.
The attorney and legal team who argued the case for Prop 8 were grossly incompetent.
It’s an odious comparison between transracial marriage and same gender marriage. According to constitutional law, there has to be an overwhelming compelling and provable reason for having any type of discrimination at the level of the individual. With respect to business and social contracts, my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that the burden of proof is much lower. One doesn’t have to have absolute proof to introduce a type of discrimination at the level of contracts; one only needs to have reasonable inference of harm to introduce ostensibly discriminatory regulations and laws. In the case of same gender marriage, potential harms are (1) the argument I made above and (2) the possibility that children may be “confused,” and potentially increase the probability that more children will choose a gay lifestyle (this gets into the argument of whether gays are “born” or “made” and to what extent nature vs nurture enters into it). The point is that there currently isn’t proof beyond reasonable doubt of potential harm, but there is reasonable inference of potential harm. This would not be enough to introduce discriminatory laws at the level of the individual, but it is enough to introduce ostensibly discriminatory laws at the level of the business or social contract.
The problem is that pro-Prop 8 legal team called only a single witness, whose testimony was characterized by the judge as being wishy-washy and equivocal. They could have and should have put on a big panel of witnesses, to argue persuasively about potential harm. They didn’t. In contrast, the dream team of Olson and Boies were, of course, brilliant in their execution.
The judge decided on the basis of the evidence presented to him. In other words, he was an umpire calling balls and strikes, which is what Justice Roberts said is the appropriate role of a judge — not to impose his own personal opinion, knowledge, or morality.
I’m very confident that the case presented before the Supreme Court will have much more competent lawyers on the pro-Prop 8 side and that the current decision will be overturned and Prop 8 upheld.
Long term, though, I think that this is a lost cause (affirmation of Prop 8 style laws). The last time something like this came up in CA, it passed by over 60% (I think maybe 65% — I’ll look it up, when I have time). Now it’s down to 52% and the only reason it passed is that a whole lot of Latino “illegals” got citizenship in the past 20 years and, combined with blacks, they provided the margin of victory. Among young, white voters, there is overwhelming agreement with the concept of same gender marriage. I think that this is bad for society, but that’s the handwriting on the wall.
I don’t worry so much for the institution of religious marriage. I worry about the institution of secular marriage. As I wrote above, marriage has always been looked at as a BFD (or, in other words, as the biggest commitment most people ever make). The average first marriage endures for well beyond two decades (statistics to the contrary include multiply-divorced people in the mix), which is sufficient to have children and bring them to adulthood. (Parenthetically, I wouldn’t characterize any marriage which lasts 20 years as being a “failed” marriage, even if it does subsequently end in divorce. The marriage worked for the couple for 20 years, during which time it did a lot of good, presumably. And, often, 2nd marriages do last even longer). Beyond children, it does enforce a useful degree of good behavior in men. Gay relationships, as I argued before, are much more casual.
It’s been argued that states which allow gay marriage see divorce rates drop, relative to states which outlaw gay marriage, e.g.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html
But this is very misleading. What matters is long term attitudes towards marriage, especially in the minds of men. I think that gay marriage will erode the concept of fidelity in marriage, which is important for secular people, as well as for religious people. Secular marriage actually does work pretty well, at present, e.g.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm
I worry very much that this will change, as marriage becomes redefined and dumbed down.
I wish that gays would simply come up with their own label for committed, same gender unions. There’s no reason to co-opt the term “marriage,” which has a well established meaning. Just call it something else and give it the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations and it then everything would be fine for the vast majority of people, if not for everyone.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Hey Larry! Long time no see. Where have you been hiding?
Face it, the argument against gay marriage is basically one of Fudamentalist Christian religion. They were against extending the rights to vote to women and the rights to anything to people of different races other than Caucasians, and now the are against the rights to marriage for gay people. What is the difference, any way? And whose business is it, any how? For people who say they want smaller and less government, they sure try their best to expand it.
@Mike:
>>Where have you been hiding?<<
Waiting for the earth to cool down.
– L
Didn’t you hear Larry? The University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit says its getting warmer
Heh
CARY: THIS IS UNBELEIVLY FUNNY: BUT I think you’R MiSTAKEN,
BECAUSE, in thoses time, they where probably whearing the pecker hidden toward the back, for protection from the gods, who where in and out on the EARTH. bye
There’s the matter of protecting minority groups of citizens from the tyranny of the majority. Perhaps citizens are guaranteed a right to their own “pursuit of happiness” and to equal protection under the law, when the only argument against it seems to majority prejudice or disapproval.
Why should we think that a gay judge is any more or less capable of fairly hearing the arguments of the case than a heterosexual judge, when the matter at hand largely has to do with heterosexual biases against the people in question?
openid ayol.com/runswim: hi, there is realy nothing more left to say after you. thank you.
@Curt:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
Actually, it’s been pretty cool here in the coastal O.C., this summer, but pretty warm in Mike’s neck of the woods and most other parts, out yonder.
– LW/HB
Oh, I know it….live in coastal O.C. myself Larry but headed to Laughlin this weekend where it’s 110, yikes
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: “pretty warm in Mike’s neck of the woods”
Larry, it’s called AUGUST. And I’ve seen it hotter, longer.
Of course when we have record cold the Global Warming zealots insist it’s only weather. When it’s hot they claim it’s proof of global warming.
Oh, and Larry:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26228
@Curt
I see your http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26228 ,
and I raise you http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
(remember your auto drinking water, crossing the Mojave to Laughlin). And don’t go turning off on Zzyzx Road.
– LW/HB
I see your raise and raise you some cooked books:
AG(data)W Begins In 1990
Ahhh, Zzyzx street…that gives me some fond memories
>>I left the Catholic Church because of the hypocracy of the clergy who openly recruited homosexuals to fill their ranks.>>
oilman…personal decisions are personal decisions, but you might want to do some research concerning Bella Dodd ( http://genus.cogia.net/index.htm ) and the involvement of Communism in their efforts to destroy the Church.
If gays have Civil Unions, and if Civil Unions just aren’t enough, what’s the end game?
What if the goal is actually the destruction of marriage and families?
This is one of those topics that I veiw as a side show, misdirection, a distraction or sleight of hand….Watch this shiny coin in my right hand while my left hand picks your pocket…
These people are doing their very best to implode the nation we live in and we get to hear about this crap on the news…
SUEK: hi, I like that other link, do you think I could print the 10chapters? some other days,when my computer is faster.
“What if the goal is actually the destruction of marriage and families?”
Why would anyone think that it is?
It seems to me that gay people who are emotionally committed to each other simply want the right to form legally recognized families, the same as the rest of us. Letting them do so probably increases the general level of responsibility and social stability, rather than diminishing it.
When people willingly take on supportive commitments to each other and responsibily for each other, it’s better for everybody. I don’t understand why it has to become a divisive political issue.
Firstly what’s religion got to do with marriage? Marriage predates Christianity and no one as far as I can see can pinpoint when marriage started in history. And of course atheists and agnostics can marry – so let’s leave religion out of marriage as clearly that’s a non-starter.
Secondly same sex marriage goes back at least to the Roman times. But this is also irrelevant to whether it should be legal now because how far would the human race heave progressed if we only do things now as we always done them before? That’s a luddite argument.
As for social norms – that’s laughable. America is supposed to celebrate the individual rather than slavishly following social ‘norms’. Is that how some people live their lives – change their behaviour to match want their neighbours do?
And I always been confused exactly how allowing two people of the same sex who want to marry somehow destroys or corrupts the institution of marriage. Are heterosexual marriages so delicate that it will somehow crumble if gays can marry?
They aren’t hurting anyone – let ’em get on with it.
@tadcf
It’s hard to make a point when you engage in rambling rhetoric without a coherent theme in your post. It also makes it hard to engage in any meaningful discussion as well, but I will try nonetheless.
One – It is not only ‘fundamentalist christian’ religion that opposes the unions of homosexuals being termed a ‘marriage’. There is Jewish, non-fundamentalist christian, Muslim and even atheistic opposition to it. The institution of marriage has been around for millenia, and has been traditionally accepted as the union of a man and a woman. It is an integral part of some religions’ accepted societies. To force upon them by government decree, a complete change in the accepted definition of the institution is to prevent the free practice of those religions, something the first amendment expressly allows in our country.
Two – Most conservatives, as I stated to Cary, and we discussed, are not in opposition of homosexuality itself. We feel that we do not have the right to sit in judgement of someone who engages in a practice between two consenting adults which causes no harm to any other party. It is the forced change in an institution that we oppose. We can even agree on the allowance of civil unions for gay couples, including all rights pertaining to such a union. We have no problem with that.
Three – As I stated, and will again, the people who argue for the right of homosexual marriage are arguing for merely a word. They wish to change an accepted definition of a word. The opponents of gay marriage are fighting for historical precedence to remain the status quo, for the religious intonation of marriage to not be trampled upon, and for their rights.
Four – Their is nothing about ‘smaller’ government, nor the growing of government on trial here. That is an asinine comment that bears no influence on the topic of gay marriage.
@gaffa
I’m (by F/A standards, at least) a liberal who’s been arguing with conservatives, going back to my days as a college newspaper (the University of Louisville Cardinal) political columnist in the mid-1960s. But I’ve never but never experienced the vituperative attacks from anyone which were as nasty as those of defenders of gay marriage, simply because I tried to argue only a single principle, which should be utterly innocuous.
There are two types of people opposed to to co-option of the term “marriage” to apply to committed gay relationships. 1. Pure bigoted homophobes. 2. Pure defenders of traditional marriage. There is a degree of overlap between these two groups, but there are a lot more pure defenders of traditional marriage than there are pure bigoted homophobes.
In my debates with proponents of gay marriage, I have been stunned by their resistance to the simple solution of just choosing a different name for their new institution of same gender marriage. Yes, I read what you wrote about same sex marriage going back to Roman times. But, as I wrote (#28) this is nothing more than a historical curiosity, while opposite sex marriage (to use your terminology) is the most pervasive and enduring and universal institution in the history of the existence of homo sapiens. Yes, it has different flavors (monogamy vs polygamy), but it is essentially the same institution. Certainly, in the history of Western civilization, it has endured as a universal institution.
You talk about doing new things (not being a luddite). Fine. Let’s invent a NEW institution. Same gender “marriage.” But let’s just call it a different name. Same rights. Same responsibilities. Just a different name. You do that, and you’ll get a 75% approval rating. A simple, semantic solution to a contentious problem. Don’t co-opt a pre-existing, treasured institution. Be a true progressive and invent a new institution.
But, no, that’s not enough. I have come to believe that this battle isn’t at all about human rights or equal protection. It’s about winning a war and rubbing the noses of the vanquished in the dirt, in the process.
I find this to be extremely selfish and extremely offensive, despite the fact that I am otherwise sympathetic with almost everything else in the gay agenda. From getting rid of don’t ask/don’t tell to complete equal protection under the law.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I have to disagree with you on this one, Skookum. I’m not a church goer but I will put my moral values up against any church goer, and I don’t belong to a political party. I like to come to conclusions by myself with as much info as I can get from as many sources as I need to decide on anything.
I finally figured out (on my own) that if being gay is a choice, then being strait has to be a choice too. You can’t have one a choice and the other natural. We are all born the way we are, gay, straight, bisexual, and pedafile. Yes, I said even pedafiles are born the way they are. Acting on it is something else, but I believe their genetic code programmed them that way. What about the ones who are born with both male and female parts? Is that something that the devil did, or is it just something that happened through their genetic code?
I do believe we need to teach kids that boys might grow up to like boys and girls might grow up to like girls. How many times have you heard of a husband cheating on his wife with another man? He was gay all along but didn’t want to be a “Queer,” so he pretended to like women, got married, and had kids. Women have done the same thing. Meridith Baxter (Formerly Meridith Baxter Birney) has recently admitted she is gay. I am guessing she went through the same “Queer” thing when she was growing up.
If we all would accept people the way they are we wouldn’t have all the problems we do. We are born the way we are and no religion or political party can change that.
If you live by the Christian religion, the Old Testament laws have been “Fulfilled” and we live under the New Testament commandments. I’m no expert on the bible, but I’m guessing there’s nothing in the New Testament about gays.
Another thing to consider is like an article I read a long time ago. A lot of the manuscripts and rocks that the bible came from had parts missing or damaged and had to be filled in by educated guesswork. When translated to another language the one doing the translating could have written whatever they wanted. Imagine how the liberals would translate it into another language if they were doing the translating.
I don’t want to start an argument with anyone here. I am just stating my opinion as I am allowed in this free USA. I am 64 years old and took most of that time to figure this stuff out, so don’t anybody waste your and other people’s time trying to get me to change my mind.
Marriage should still be between a man and woman, but there should be a separate name for a union between same sexes. They should come up with a name themselves.
One comedian came up with a line I thought was funny: “For a group that can’t physically reproduce, where are they all coming from?”
If you are married, ask your partner, “Are you the opposite sex, or am I?”
I forgot to mention that I am strait but open minded about new things I learn.
Suek #42:
How does the right to gay marriage destroy heterosexual marriage?
Smorgasbord #50:
Why should marriage be limited to a man and a woman?
openid.aol.com/runnswim 49:
If you’re not against other rights for gays, why not marriage?
@tadcf:
Are you equally willing to extend it to be between a man and his daughter….how about between your juvenile son and a 40 year old woman?
We accept age restrictions on marriage. Why not gender restrictions as well?
Also, are you willing to extend marriage to where multiple partners are allowed?
How about some pervert who wants to marry his favorite sheep or that horse he’s been having relations with out in the barn?
If you begin to blur the lines where the limits are drawn…where do you draw the new set of lines?
Who gets to decide that the new lines won’t include multiple partners and/or multi-species areas?
Society, through the votes of the people, must decide what is acceptable and, in this case, the voters of CA, 7,000,000 of them…in one of the most liberal states in the land…said nope, not acceptable.