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
If you take the gay argument for marriage to it’s final conclusion you will only see anarchy. What about if a father wants to marry his son? A mother his daughter? Three people love each other so why can’t they be married. Commen sense tells me that there needs to be some morallity applied to marriage or this is the logical end. I love my dog, shouldn’t I be able to marry him?? Just kidding. My butt’s not up for any input.
AYE CHIHUAHUA: hi, I’m sure you answerd all the questions, exactly; MORe of another reason to choose the president of AMERICA when you dont look at futures ABUSES of any given powers
WHO will shape a FUTURE of disaster or HAPPYNESS. thank you.
@Smorgasbord:
Beautiful comment. I’m with you completely.
There actually is, depending on which translation you’re looking at (the New International Version uses the word outright). Paul, speaking to the Corinthians (1 Cor 6:9-11), has a list of those who “will not enter the kingdom of Heaven”.
But the Greek language is far more complex than English, where they have 5 words for each type of love, whereas we have to use a qualifier.
So when the NIV translation uses the word Homosexual, others’ use effeminate or weak (which, to me, is irrespective of sexuality) Personally, my view is that it means someone without backbone or conviction, who flakes out on what they say they stand for.
I also believe that some translators of scripture were not above leaning towards their own personal biases. Why do you think King James would have commissioned his own translation?
I should also mention that Paul also deemed that women should stay silent within the church, and that leaders of a church should be married with families. (both found in the book of Timothy)
So, once again, it all comes down to what you personally believe, and people believe many different things. For myself, I believe that denying one group of people the same rights, opportunities, and responsibilities everyone else receives, based solely on being different, is completley contrary to the overall message of Jesus Christ – who held the company of many of societies “undesirables.”
So, since there are so many different views in regards to religion and what the Bible actually says, all valid from their own perspective, this is why I’ve said I don’t wish to debate it from this line of reasoning. The only way to get on the same page as Americans, is to hold to the US Constitution, which applies to everyone.
Smorgasbord, your comment touched me personally, as it took my own dad about as long to come to the same conclusions as you. It was when I acted in play Torch Song Trilogy, in which I played a gay character. A year later he said it was his favorite thing he saw me in, because he learned something that changed his perspective. It remains one of my fondest memories of him. Thanks for reminding me by sharing.
@Aye Chihuahua:
You must’ve missed my comment on #20.
Also, please keep the 14th Amendment in mind. The rights of the minority cannot be infringed upon by the majority. Otherwise, we’d be ruled by mobs.
Speaking of mobs, it’s Yankees vs. Boston today, so I’d better get moving….
@tadfc #53
I’m for equal rights. As I wrote, call it something other than marriage (you get to choose the name) and you’ll have a 75% support level, including from me. I explained my reasoning, in prior comments on this thread. You are not arguing for equal rights or equal protection. You are arguing to co-opt a name with a long and universally established meaning. You are advocating for a new institution which has never been more than a non-enduring historical curiosity and which has never been part of American history. As a new institution, it deserves a new name. So just give it the name and it will be done deal, within a very short number of years. Or else turn it into a war over a word and take twice as long to win a pyrrhic victory, which will be resented by a sizable percentage of the population for a generation. It’s entirely unnecessary and entirely unreasonable.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@tadcf: What I mean is that the word “marriage” should have the same meaning it always has, a union between a man and a woman, otherwise there will have to be terms like “gay marriage” and “straight marriage.” That is why there should be a separate name that the gay community comes up with.
@Aye Chihuahua: Let’s not turn democrat here Aye Chihuahua. When they know they can’t win an argument on existing facts, they bring in all kinds of exaggerated stuff with the “What if…” stuff. Stay conservative.
Those of us who think gays should be able to “marry” are just saying it should be just like a “straight marriage” except between gays.
How did you find out about the guy and his horse? If it is a female horse, is it OK, but wrong if it is a male horse? Which one started the affair?
Your idea that the majority should rule in all decisions means we should get rid of the Constitution and rule by the Polls. I still don’t understand why we should let the Polls decide things for us.
Did we forget that a long time ago the MAJORITY of people said that blacks (called Negros then) can’t vote? Did we forget that the MAJORITY said that the American Indian can’t compete with anything the Americans make? Some times the MAJORITY can be wrong.
I can’t believe your accepting the vote of Californians. When was the last time they voted for something you can agree with, except for the gay issue?
@Smorgasbord:
Is there a sarcasm tag missing somewhere there? Cannot tell for sure.
I don’t think I stated my position on the issue one way or the other.
I simply posed questions to tadcf to see where he would fall with his answers and if he would be consistent in answering the questions that I posed.
Also, if you look to the legal challenges to Prop 8 the first judge said that the People had to speak on the issue.
@Cary: Paul also said that “his opinion” was that a person shouldn’t marry so they could spend more time worshiping God. They should only marry if they had too strong of a desire for sex. If all Christians went by his idea, the religion would have ended in a few years.
You reminded me that even biblical scholars have admitted that there are known errors in the Bible. Some are like you said, where sometimes there were several different words that could have been chosen to be used, only to find out later that the wrong one was chosen.
You reminded me of my dad. He wasn’t religious, and the last conversation I had with him had nothing to do with religion, but it was the best conversation I had with him before he died. I know how you feel.
@Aye Chihuahua: All I am saying is it is a one issue thing. Yes or no for gay marriage. Everything else you mentioned are separate issues that would have to be decided on separately. Let’s settle the first one first. Even in the “straight marriage” you could have the same situations where people might want what you mentioned.
People, most of you are missing the larger point here about the issue of ‘gay marriage’. It isn’t about what some people choose to do, or what some people dislike about what others do. One does not have the right to sit in judgement of another’s actions that do nothing injurious to others. I don’t care what gays do, just like I don’t care if someone walks around their house naked all day, or burns more electricity than I do, or drives a larger or smaller car than I do, or colors their hair pink, or…………………….and it goes on and on. It doesn’t matter.
The main issue that people have with ‘gay marriage’ is the co-opting of a historically precedented institution defined throughout most of history as being between a man and a woman. Certain religious rights and ceremonies are centered around this. When a government, by influence of one group, forces another to accept the will and desires of the first, especially when it goes against a person’s religious views, the government is in violation of the First Amendment, specifically, the freedom of religion clause. It goes both ways people. Government cannot establish a state approved religion and cannot infringe on the religious views of anyone. That is why religion plays an important part in this entire debate.
Cary and myself, and later, Larry, all agree that a civil union of homosexuals is no problem. I’d bet that, like Larry states, the majority of people in the country would agree with that as well. Fine, then if people desire that outcome, then term all unions, in regards to the government, as civil unions. Leave actual marriage to the person(s)’ chosen religion to perform. That way, no one is discriminated against by the government. Everyone is left alone to do their thing as long as it doesn’t cause injury to another party.
@johgalt (#65):
Your proposal to take the state out of marriage and leave marriage to religions is an often-proposed “solution,” but it is only a partial solution. As I wrote before, I don’t worry so much for the institution of religious marriage. I worry about the institution of secular marriage. As I wrote, marriage has always been looked at as a BFD (or, in other words, as the biggest commitment most people ever make).
What matters is long term attitudes towards marriage, especially in the minds of men. When civil authorities no longer perform marriages, then what do secular people do? They just privately say some vows, on their own? Or get friends to give them a ceremony? However it’s done, it’s certain to seem less important, less “official,” much less of a BFD. Presumably, such “marriages” could be ended by simply saying “I divorce you” three times and filling out some forms in the County Clerk’s office.
This is one answer to “what threat to traditional marriage would be posed by gay marriage?” Or else, you just keep the civil institution in place, continue to call it marriage, and make no distinction between traditional marriage pairs (a man and a woman) and same gender pairs. But “committed” gay male relationships are vastly more casual than committed straight relationships. You get harm when the concept of commitment gets dumbed down and you get potential harm when kids are taught that same gender marriage is the same thing as opposite gender marriage and kids see (as they grow up) what goes on in male-male marriage. You also get harm if you’d rather your kids not turn out to be gay and you’ve got a society which makes no distinctions, even at the level of something as basic and traditional as marriage. I think it’s fairly obvious that there isn’t a bright line distinction: gay vs straight. Going back to Kinsey, there is the concept of varying degrees of gayness and straightness. Sure, a whole lot of people are born dominantly one way or the other, but there probably is a sizable zone which could tip one way or the other, depending on life experience. At least, this is certainly the way a great many parents would view the situation, which is why they are so resistant to the concept of creating one indistinguishable institution of marriage, open to both same gender and opposite gender pairings.
All of this could be obviated very simply. Don’t confuse the issue. It is different when a man marries a woman than when a man marries a man. Why is it necessary to pretend that there is no difference, when there so obviously is a difference? So call the man/woman relationship marriage, as it’s always been called; call a man/man relationship something else, but give it the same rights and responsibilities. Call a woman/woman relationship something else, but give it the same rights and responsibilities.
This would work, over time, with much less acrimony and with much more acceptance, in in a much shorter period of time.
I don’t look for Judge Walker’s decision to be sustained by the Supreme Court. This will make it a long and bloody battle through the states. It doesn’t have to be this way, if Proposition 8 opponents (supporters of same gender marriage) exercise some reason and common sense.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@johngalt: I am guessing that “marriage” is not covered in the constitution. That means it is neither legal or illegal for people to marry. It is a religious based act.
The reason Massachusetts allows gay marriage is that their constitution never mentioned marriage, so there was no law against it. I lived there at the time the debate went on.
As I have mentioned different times, to have it the way you want, Christianity would have to be declared the national religion, which is illegal.
Just like Massachusetts, if there is nothing in our Constitution or amendments about marriage, it is up to individual religions to decide for themselves how it will be. I guess that means those of us who have no religion can do what we want and unite with any person place or thing we choose. The US Supreme Court even said that banning same sex marriages is illegal.
Have you noticed that it seems like each religion and cult has their niche group they choose to condemn. Hitler chose the Jews. Dose anybody remember the old saying, “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.” That’s the way the Constitution was set up. Everything is legal unless it infringes on the rights of anyone else. Prove to me that gay marriages will infringe on anybody’s right and I will change my mind. Otherwise we should all accept things as they are. I don’t like to see people risk medical problems by putting on tattoos or all kinds of metal in their body, but there is no law against it after a certain age and it doesn’t infringe on any of my rights, so they can decorate or poke up their bodies all they want.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
For someone as eloquent as you are, Larry, I’m actually quite surprised that you don’t believe in the power of words. Words have often been the difference between war and peace.
We learned in the 1960’s that separate doesn’t mean equal. I’ve already demonstrated in my comment #17 here, one example of the legal difference between a marriage and a civil union.
Calling it a different name also opens the door to future laws being passed that apply to A but not to B.
Women are still fighting for equal compensation for equal work. If we keep focusing on our “differences”, rather than what makes us alike, and therefore equal, we all lose in the long run, and miss any opportunities to celebrate those differences as equals.
I think it’s entirely reasonable to insist that if we are to maintain that it’s the same, then we MUST name it as such for everyone – no matter what we name it.
Is a Black Judge capable of hearing a civil rights’ case?
Is Justice Sotomayor qualified to hear a case involving Hispanics?
Will Justice Kagan be allowed to hear cases involving Jewish Lesbians that are homely?
Can the court’s overturn a referendum passed by the people of a state? Absofrigginlutely.
Suppose, North Dakota passed a referendum that took away the right of Black People to vote, would that be a law that a judge could overturn?
Personally, I have decided on a new name for homosexual marriage, I call it “Homocommitment” if you say it enough it just rolls off the end of your tongue
@Cary:
[some quotes from your writings, above]
As I wrote earlier (#28), this is an odious comparison. It’s the difference between regulating a specific social contract versus restricting a fundamental human right. The fundamental right is that women have the right to marry men, and vice versa. The great value of this to society for millennia is that it imposes a minimum standard of loyalty, with clear benefits to children and, historically, to women to a greater degree than to men. Today, women are clearly less in need of protection by men than they were even within the lifetimes of some people still alive today. But marriage has deep and pervasive roots as an institution which especially protected children and women. The reasons why marriage was such a BFD for a man were that marriage vows traditionally had not only a line about “forsaking all others” (or other words to that effect) but also a vow to “protect.” These were commitments as equally important in secular marriage as in religious marriage. Society had a clear benefit in promoting and fostering marriage, which is why the state got involved in it in the first place.
But restricting the right of a black man to marry at all was an abrogation of a historically established, fundamental human right. Restricting the right of a black man to marry a white woman (which the majority of white voters in Alabama voted to continue, as recently as 2000) were abrogations of the much more recent civil rights laws. Restricting official state recognition of marriage to man marrying woman, or one man marrying one woman, were consistent with the well established, historical purposes of marriage. Marriage didn’t exist, prima facie, for the purpose of fostering nurturing relationships in general. It existed, prima facie, for the purpose of fostering standards of behavior in men for the benefit of children and women.
Gay relationships are notoriously promiscuous. e.g.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=1
The above article is obviously supportive of same gender marriage, but it is promoting a radical view — that traditional marriage would be strengthened by following the gay model of “open” relationships.
Gay males in uncommitted situations (free range gays) commonly have scores to hundreds of partners per year. Gay males in committed relationships have 5 to 6 partners per year, outside of the relationship. What this shows is not that gay males are hornier than straight males, but it shows, if you will, the natural inclination of males, and it shows just how successful traditional marriage is at fostering socially beneficial male behavior. The odd Tiger Woods-type situation does exist, but the typical straight couple have zero to 1 extramarital couplings over the course of their marriage, which, for first marriages, endure for an average of more than two decades.
Fostering monogamy does more than protect children and women — it protects society from an even larger epidemic of sexually transmitted disease. 50% of gay males become hepatitis B positive within two years of beginning to have male on male sex. There is a very good reason why gays are still prohibited from serving as blood donors. Condoms are only 80% effective in preventing transmission of HIV, much less effective in preventing transmission of hepatitis B and HSV, and probably much less effective in preventing transmission of HPV. There is currently an epidemic of oral cancer, resulting from HPV infection during oral sex (in which condoms are virtually never utilized). Their effectiveness in preventing other STDs is probably less favorable than the odds of playing Russian roulette.
Many states, by the way, continue to require pre-marital blood tests. e.g. http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/blood_test_requirements/index.shtml I’m personally in favor of these. It wouldn’t surprise me were gays to view the requirements for reporting the results of such tests to be discriminatory and seek to eliminate these regulations.
Official state recognition of gay “marriage” as being indistinguishable from traditional marriage is a radical experiment, the outcome of which we won’t know for more than a generation. That’s how long it will take to determine how the societal view of marriage as life’s most sacred commitment changes or doesn’t change, relative to those in countries and regions where marriage continues to be defined in traditional terms. There is no reason at all to take this sort of risk, when the alternative is equal rights, but different names for obviously different institutions.
Gays view marriage through a different lens, commitment-wise, than do straights. When gays look through the marriage lens, they see a different institution. It should have a different name.
This is a straw man argument. Just as government jurisdictions have a legitimate interest in fostering traditional marriage and in requiring blood tests, for reasons which have nothing at all to do with homophobia, so can the government regulate ways in which rights to citizenship may be fulfilled. Straight couples certainly use marriage as a subterfuge to obtain citizenship. Gay couples would doubtless do the same. The issue of who is entitled to citizenship is entirely separate from the issue of the definition of marriage, as it has been clearly understood throughout the history of Western civilization.
I do believe in the power of words. For people who honor and cherish the institution of traditional marriage, efforts to change laws to foster the absurd concept that same gender "marriage" is no different, are, indeed, fighting words. There is no need, whatsoever to go down this acrimonious path. Recognize that there are fundamental differences between opposite gender and same gender "unions," and just call them by different names, but give them equal rights and responsibilities.
Regarding the "separate but equal" issue. The comparison to the history of the civil rights movement is also odious. In point of fact, the difference between traditional marriage and gay "marriage" is entirely based on gender. The concept of separate but equal, applied to matters of gender, is well established, accepted, and successful in Western civilization and in US law — in matters ranging from separate toilets to separate sports, leagues, and teams of/in athletic competition. There are differences in physical requirements for many jobs, including the military, which are scaled according to gender. So separate but equal as relating to race is an entirely different consideration than separate but equal relating to gender.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Wow. Talk about odious. The way we regard women in our society has changed considerably, as well. While chivalry is not dead, women are not helpless little creatures who must be taken care of for their every need. Your argument would lead to the conclusion that a self sufficient woman would have no need to enter a marriage contract, which is silly at best. And what of couple who choose not to have children?
A highly stereotypical generalization. Some are, yes – but promiscuity is not exclusive to homosexuality. Do you remember the key parties of the 1970’s? The nature of any relationship between two people is their business only, and not a basis for discrimination, at all.
Again, wow. Talk about a straw man argument. My purpose for bringing this issue up was to illustrate how marriage and civil unions are clearly different. It’s not equal if the law applies to A but not to B. This completley supports my stance that only equal language is truly equal. So gay couples could break the law if given the same rights as straight people, who also break the same law, therefore we shouldn’t give them to them? Absolutely Ridiculous.
Your entire argument seems based on your view that gays are somehow less committed to their partners than straight people, and take the word “marriage” less seriously, and therefore should be denied the word because it means less to them. Marriage is “dumbed down” (your words) if two men or two women can marry, yet any drunken straight couple in Vegas can get married on a whim, and not remember in the morning. Yeah sure, let’s use generalizations to illustrate how we decide how meaningful peoples’ relationships are, and then decide what an entire population of people can or cannot have, based on those generalizations…
I do not equate race with sexual preference, but I do equate the discrimination towards a group of people in the minority by the majority. And I do regard gross generalizations by stereotype, of any group of people, equally offensive, and certainly not a basis for denying them any rights whatsoever.
Judge Walker addresses all of your arguments, stereotypes, and irrational generalizations, Larry, in his ruling:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/proposition-8-ruling-decision-excerpts.html
CARY: hi, you know how A quite numerous group among them,love to display perversions in public places where all family groups are living; SO if they gain more legitimacy
HOW much more abusive their display will occur, because thoses excess happen ,IT would have been wiser for the judge to restrained himself from that judgement to legalyse without restriction the homosexsuels unions.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Bees, such behavior is not exclusive to homosexuals, and no more or less acceptable when displayed by heterosexuals. If we passed laws based on what we deem the distasteful social behavior of some is, nobody would have any rights.
For men to decide to stick around after the rut, rather than going on a hunting/fishing trip to the mountains until they feel the urge, is the reason why we as a species have done so well. In more primitive times to the present, a woman with child’s chances of survival were and are increased with a man residing in the domicile or cave who provides sustenance and protection. Thus a bond occurs: the woman gains security and relief from the desperation of survival and a man gains a certain respect in the community for being able to not only provide for himself and others, but to also serve as a role model to his children and other men.
This has roughly been the basic model and reason for marriage for millions of years, whether formalized or just initiated with a series of grunts, this is what society and culture is predicated upon. No matter what a homosexual couple wants to convey to themselves or the public, this basic tenet of marriage would be diminished in homosexual unions.
Should homosexual couples have the same rights as straight couples? Yes.
Is the union different? Yes, indeed.
Although we cannot base our society on the social norms that were present over the eons of human existence, marriage is the oldest surviving trait of human culture and is the very reason for Man’s success as a species. To change marriage by saying, we know will now corrupt the name and dilute the significance of marriage by recognizing gay marriage as the same although it is obviously considerably different, is counter-intuitive to the basic tenets of our culture, our history, and our very existence.
@Smorgasbord:
Homosexual marriage came about in Mass because of the Mass Supreme court, it was never voted into law by the legislature or the people. Sounds like an unconstitutional process around the legislative mechanisms in the in the states Constitution.
As for proving gay marriage infringing on anyone’s right what it does is it forces a society who by and large against gay marriage to accept the reality the homosexuality is real, which it isn’t. There are plenty of formerly gay pay who now live normal lives married to a woman. You won’t hear about it because of media blackout.
Another reason against gay marriage and giving any special rights to homosexuals is homosexuality can be used as a political vehicle to silence any opposing opinion or ideals like when liberals through the “racism” card around, instead it will be a “bigot” or homophone. It metamorphosizes into thought police.
If homosexuality is real and a person is born with it then homosexuals wouldn’t have to indoctrinate children in public schools it would self evident.
Think I don’t know what a gay man knows, I use to be a homosexual, now I’m married with three children and there is no looking back.
@Skookum:
Looks like you posed a theory. I wouldn’t base that theory to give the ideal that marriage can be redefined because of primate beginnings. Marriage was created by God hence the world procreated to the modern point of a 6 billion world population. Homosexuals CANNOT procreate and like wise shouldn’t get married.
Us straight people cannot marry the same sex, nor should homosexuals.
@Offensive Bias:
I don’t believe them. They may have changed behavior, and go on to live a lie, to the disservice of the woman and themselves, because they have submitted to religious fear, family threats, career advancement, or other reasons.. but they still are who they are.
Gay or straight, men still have the equipment to reproduce. Even if I believed that you changed your sexual orientation by will (which I don’t, unless you acted out with other men as a result of some earlier life trauma, which is entirely different…), I still could not support you imposing your own choice onto others. Whether being gay is a choice or not (and I don’t believe it is), is irrelevant, as all Americans have the right to make such a choice as to who they love, without penalty.
@Offensive Bias:
Then neither should infertile couples. Think of all those children in orphanages who will never know what it’s like to be part of any kind of loving family, because your argument prevailed…
@Skookum:
You homos need to quit comparing your made up civil rights campaign with the struggle of blacks.
Being black is natural where as homosexuality isn’t(sounds remedial but it’s the truth).
Sotomoyer is a racists windbag who thinks female latinas are smarter then whitey…she’s unqualified because she’s predisposed racially.
Judge Walker was predisposed in his decision to overturn a Constitutional process of a state amending it’s Constitution. Judge Walker overturned 7 million people declaring them all homophobes. The man wanted cameras in the court room so he can make a public spectacle of himself to the world.
And Kagan who couldn’t answer a simple question “Can congress regulate what food we can eat” she was silent and wouldn’t answer the question. Kagan is nothing more then a rubber stamp for Obama’s anti American agenda.
I hear the homosexual lobby couldn’t get their referendum on the ballet this coming November. Guess it wasn’t popular enough in the state of California.
I probably wouldn’t speak of the rambling nature of my writing, if I were you. Generally I’m short and to the point, offering citations where necessary to document my work.
1.I do not dispute that some non-fundamentalist religious people are anti-gay marriage too, but historically it’s been fundamentalist religion that has been against progressive advancements such as women’s sufferage and intermarriage between the races, and they’re in the forefront of this one.
2.Giving gays the rights to marry is not infringing on any body’s freedom of religion. Religious people still have their freedom to believe and act a they want—as long as it doesn’t intrude of the beliefs and actions of others. (This has been a general maxim of the American way as long as I’ve been alive.)
3.Just because something has been around for a long time, and is a tradition, doesn’t mean it’s right and should be continued. Slavery has been around a long time too.
4.Your statement about “We have no problems with it…(the gays)”, reminds me of a statement that some right-wing politicians used to make during the Civil Rights era: “I’m not against Negroes, some of my best friends are Negroes.”
5.Your third point is just a repetition of the first two, with the addition of some emotive language, i.e., “trampled upon”, which has no business in a rational discussion. One could just as easily say that religious beliefs are ‘trampling’ on the rights of gays.
6.Calling a person’s belief names, like asinine, is generally not considered a rational argument. To create the number of new laws which would be required to make civil unions for homosexuals ‘equal’ to the rights incorporate into marital law, would be equivalant to enlarging government.
Clear enough for ya’?
I forgot to address that last comment to Johngalt
@Cary:
Sir, have you ever thought maybe your the one living a lie? You have to loop inside your head the justifications of your lifestyle and you remain stubborn in your ways?
You say they the formers are still what they are. In the first place what makes a person homosexual? Can’t answer that because there isn’t a answer. I disagree with your assertion that outside forces contribute to a homosexual going straight. Not true it’s whats in the heart is what defines a person.
You don’t need to call the kettle black when you say I’, imposing my will when one activist judge overturns a constitutional legal process in a state. your the ones are imposing your ideology on everyone.
@Offensive Bias:
Here at Flopping Aces, we don’t allow multiple user names or sock puppeting.
Choose a name and stick with it or you won’t be allowed to participate here.
This will be your only warning.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Roger Aye, I’m sticking with this one. I like much more then “b1jetmech” if that’s all right.
The progressive’s end game is indeed to break down society, so they can play God and rebuild it in their twisted image.
The gay population could have accepted civil unions with all the benefits, but nooooooooooooo- because they actually want this battle, and to stick their finger in the lion’s eye. Be careful what you wish for-
In the meantime, this is indeed a “side” issue, meant to keep us tied up while the progressives finish passing their agenda, which will take conservatives at least a generation to roll back- Look at Social Security- a failed proggram that has now officially run out of money. Look at Medicare and Medicaid, in the same boat, with Doctors opting out of these programs.
Now we have “concierge” doctors, where you pay an annual fee, even if you do not see the doctor in that time- and this is the “Change” people wanted? I don’t think so-
As far as being a gay person wanting marriage, I don’t particularly care- Let them “Marry”, with an asterisk, denoting them to be non breeders- after all, they deserve to be as unhappy as regular folks.
@ bias: I’ve never been called a homo, but I had a hearty chuckle after reading your comment. I must suggest that you need to read some of the personal stories in my bibliography to see why other readers probably had a hearty chuckle also.
I have read the polls and election results concerning Prop 8, measure that wouldn’t have passed without overwhelming support from the Black and Latino populations. I am a White male of mixed blood who has a Conservative’s compassion for the plight of homosexuals. I don’t believe they should serve in the military, because of the potential for abuse and the possibility of morale problems. I think the simple term marriage should be a heterosexual term and that gays should have a concept like “Homo Commitment” to serve as the official title for gay ‘marriage’.
My former opponents and sparring partners from the MMA dojos would have cracked up to hear someone refer to me as a homo, such a jest in those places could result in blood flowing and broken bones, thanks for the laugh, I needed that before going to work.
@Offensive Bias:
I love the way you assume that anyone who supports equal rights for gay people are gay themselves! As if it matters.
I can no more answer that than you can definitively answer what makes a person heterosexual. Again, doesn’t matter.
Well, now we agree. To that end, it shouldn’t matter what “equipment” one’s partner has, when honoring their relationship as equal to anyone else’s.
Once again, repetitive argument. I’ve already pointed out that putting peoples’ rights up to popular vote invites mob rule and is counter to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
To Cary- Your arguments do not matter in the end, simply because nature has taken many wrong turns in the course of evolution, and gay people are part of that wrong course, much like being born lame, or siamese twins would be.
It is not that being gay is a terminal condition, but nature does not look kindly at abberations, and that is what gay people are- sad, but true.
The main purpose of life is to further that through reproduction, and gay people are not wired that way- also sad but true.
In the wild, an albino animal is generally killed, as that color does not contribute to the effectiveness of its breeding and feeding- you can see an albino from a long distance.
White doves, for example, are a human- induced adaptation. In the wild, doves (and other birds as well) push the abnormal ones out- they have no time for an evolutionary dead end- but we humans have compassion, which messes with the evolutionary aspect of our genetics. I am not saying compassion is bad, it is just uniquely human, and thus gay people survive, instead of being killed by the tribe, as would happen otherwise.
This does not mean that gay people are anything other than evolutionary dead ends- sorry.
Offensive BIAS: hi, I like all your comments,which bring a new angle on the forum which is very realistic and getting to search deeper to understand the differences in people behaviors, thank you. bye
@Blake: it may surprise you to learn that homosexuality does indeed occur in nature. I’ll provide links and further thoughts when I’m not posting from my phone. Still, science like religion, doesn’t trump the constitution.
here have been several ‘primitive’ cultures that made allowances for gay men and considered them to have a ‘special’ place in society. I believe it was the Cheyenne among others who had the unique status for gays.
Of course the early Greeks and Romans tolerated and even promoted homosexuality in the military; however, marriage was a separate and official status and every man was expected to marry and be fruitful.
SKOOKUM: hi, I am not quite sure, but in the bible, there is some humans called EUNUQUES,
that must be the french name.
ALSO POMPEI was one. bye
@tadcf
My point about your writing, in particular comment #30, is that you used several, non-related claims and generalities as support for your point, instead of discussing particular, specific items.
1. Claiming an objection to a group, or certain group, as being against this does not give you support for it. Are you trying to encourage feelings of guilt for opposing gay marriage by relating someone’s opposition to it with the ‘fundamentalist’ christians? Muslims most likely oppose it even more vehemently than them, yet I don’t see you using Islam as your chosen attack target.
2. It does infringe on a person’s chosen religion when society is forced to adopt the changing of an accepted definition of what marriage constitutes. It’s not the action of the homosexual unions that most people are against. There is a difference, and it does affect other people’s lives.
3. Are you attempting to equate slavery with the traditional, accepted definition of marriage? It doesn’t work, as one(slavery) infringed on other’s rights, while the other does not. There is no case you can claim that by disallowing a civil union of gays to be termed a marriage has infringed on someone’s civil rights. On the other hand, as I stated above and do so again, you infringe on people’s religious rights by forcing a change in the accepted definition of an institution that has been around as long as marriage has.
4. Again with trying to equate this issue with those civil rights issues of blacks. It’s not even close to being the same thing. Never mind your misguided relating of the ‘right-wing’ to opposition of black’s civil rights. That is a whole other topic.
5. Again, show me a case of religious ‘rights’ of someone that has trampled on the rights of gays seeking legal recognition of their union to another. If you are talking about disallowing any such union to occur, then I agree that it has happened. If you are talking about disallowing that union to be termed a ‘marriage’, then it has not. As for ’emotive language’, I don’t see how you can say it doesn’t have any place in a rational discussion, as it is descriptive and paints a visual interpretation to reinforce a point.
6. It wasn’t a name, and it wasn’t directed at your beliefs. It is an adjective referring to your comment about smaller government. I just as easily could have said it was ‘silly’, or ‘stupid’, or ‘foolish’ in describing that comment. Your original comment:
If you use ‘civil union’ as the term defining a legal, committed relationship of gays, you do not grow government(unless the law is written badly, I can give you that). It does nothing more than allow the government to legally term those relationships depending on what term is used. This is not an issue where smaller government, nor the growing of it, comes in to play.
Much clearer, and pointed, than your comment at #30, particularly this:
The argument is on the terming of homosexual unions, not the actual ‘act’ of it, hence my descriptive of your sentence as ‘rambling rhetoric’.
‘Fundamental’ christians, along with orthodox jews and fundamentalist muslims, are against homosexuality in and of itself, never mind the allowance of gay ‘marriages’. ‘Fundamental’ christianity is not the mainstream among christian sects of the religion generally, although it depends on where you live. For example, those in the southeast are much more likely to be baptists or evangelicals, and are more closely related to what is termed ‘fundamental’ christianity. Those in the NE are much more likely to observe catholicism or protestantism, which do not fall under the ‘fundamentalist’ category. One can see why you chose that which you did though. It’s kind of like using ’emotive’ language in that it paints a picture to go along with the words and reinforce one’s opinions and thoughts based on the ideas presented, but in your case, it is used wrongly and attempts to equate all who oppose within the ‘fringe’ or ‘extremist’ elements.
Don’t know what URI is, guess this won’t go through. I find it interesting that a taboo or false assertion can generate so much dialogue.
Find a subject that is factual and you can’t generate even close to the comments you have going here. Interesting.
@dee
That is because most people are conditioned to argue based on emotions, and their ‘feelings’ about issues. Present a cold, hard, accepted fact to an argument, and the argument is dead.
Also, some topics are divisive due to the emotional nature of them, even amongst some very like-minded people, and thus, naturally end up being argued to death. The Islamic mosque/non-mosque is another of these.
@Cary (#71): You grossly mischaracterize my arguments (#70).
Society benefits when children are raised in home with a mother and a father. Society also benefits when the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is limited. Traditional marriage fosters both. These are contemporary benefits. In my post, I was explaining the origins and history of marriage, which were indeed based on the concepts of protection and commitment. I was careful to note that women no longer require protection, in the prior sense of the word. I’m disappointed that you sought to mischaracterize this and to use this as a gotcha point. It was important to explain how and why marriage came to be regarded as such a BFD, in the life of a male. It is precisely through the cheapening of the concept of marriage as a BFD, a concept developed over the ages, that traditional marriage is threatened by eliminating the distinction between traditional and gay marriage.
The gay view of marriage is different from the traditional view.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=1
Your reference to the key clubs of the 70s further makes my point. It’s the natural inclination for most males to have as much sex as possible and with as many partners as possible. To a lesser extent, this applies to a surprising number of women, as well. Yet research shows that (1) the average first marriage endures for more than two decades and (2) the average number of sex partners outside the marriage, over the course of the marriage, is 0 to 1.
The New York Times article seems to argue that heterosexual married couples would benefit from adopting the gay attitude toward marriage (read the article). But this attitude is antithetical to traditional marriage. And an enormous benefit of traditional marriage is that it dramatically limits propagation and transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. The gay model of marriage would erode these benefits, to the detriment of society as a whole. I would be more than willing to get into the detailed statistics of sexually transmitted diseases, from the incidence in different populations of people to the toll it takes on everything from individual health and happiness to the costs to the health care system.
Gay marriage also introduces confusion in the minds of children. Parents have good reasons for wishing their children to not enter into the gay lifestyle — chief among these being to lessen the risk of their exposure to disease. The fact that HIV may now be controlled for decades through the continuous ingestion of toxic and horrendously expensive drugs does not trivialize its ultimate toll. And then there is hepatitis, HSV, HPV, chlamydia, and the other STDs. Of course, you love your children, gay or straight. Just as you love your children, smokers or non-smokers. And you support them with all of your heart. But you do what you can as parents to try and give them the best chance for happiness and health. I believe that, for at least some children, life’s experience and societal attitudes do matter. I agree that you can’t change sexual orientation, once it develops. I also agree that a great many people are simply born gay and that is that. But I do believe that societal attitudes can be a non-trivial influence for some children. A whole lot of people think as I do, for reasons that have nothing to do with religion or sexual practices, and this is one of the reasons why protection of the institution of traditional marriage is such a visceral issue.
With respect to Judge Walker’s opinion, all he’s saying is that the lawyers arguing in favor of Proposition 8 (against gay marriage) did not make their case. This is because, as I wrote earlier, they were incompetent. Additionally, Judge Walker was imposing the manifestly unfair standard of requiring the pro-Prop 8 side to PROVE that gay marriage would be harmful to traditional marriage. This is a manifestly unfair requirement, because gay marriage has currently existed less than 10 years (beginning in the Netherlands) and it will take more than a generation to determine the ultimate effect.
Today’s adults grew up in an environment where marriage meant one man marrying one woman and where a sine qua non of marriage is fidelity (i.e. not the gay concept of an “open” relationship). We simply have no idea what will be the ultimate effect of expanding the definition of marriage to include such a disparate lifestyle. In the absence of data, it’s unfair to require the proof of the currently unprovable.
But Judge Walker was incorrect in applying a burden of proof required to introduce ostensible discrimination at the level of the individual to the legitimate interests of the state in regulating a social contract. He is going to be reversed, and the cause of creating a national institution of the gay equivalent of marriage will be set back. More seriously, there will be a hardening of attitudes and the fostering of entirely unnecessary resentment.
Judge Walker also ignored the hugely important issue of sexually transmitted diseases.
Judge Walker’s main conclusion is demonstrably incorrect. He wrote: The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.
What prop 8 recognizes is not that same sex couples are “inferior” to opposite-sex couples, but the obvious truth that same sex couples are different than opposite-sex couples. The way that same sex couples view marriage commitments is different than the way opposite sex couples view marriage commitments. Therefore, same sex couples deserve their own institution, with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but which should be given its own, unique name, in acknowledgement of these differences.
Added at 11:05 AM PDT: President Obama would appear to agree with the points of view I’ve expressed and explained.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Aye Chihuahua:
I don’t think all these different options are relevant to the gay marriage–although ultra-conservatives do think they are some how connected. Be it as it may, sodomy was once legal in Texas, and now it isn’t. There are a lot of sexual combinations that may or may not be considered good or bad, legal or illegal–but they aren’t under consideration now. Gay marriage is.
Do you believe whether a person is granted their civil rights should be decided by vote?
openid….
But, you fail to understand, gays already have the Right of Civil Union; but it doesn’t have many rights of marriage–such as the right to receive many pension death benefits, survivor benefits in lieu of a will, the right to admittance to see a patient in a hospital when visitors are confined to relative, and many other such rights. It’s to cumbersome to change all the State and National laws to provide civil unions with equal rights to marriage. So why no simple allow gays to enter the institution of marriage, instead?
Skookum 98:
Just because there is no historical precedent does not mean the there shouldn’t be.
Skookum
Are you kidding me. Your primative social anthropology lacks evidence for the best way to conduct a modern society.
@tadcf (#98):
You state:
It’s not all that “cumbersome.” A very simple law needs to be passed: The creation of a new social institution, to be called anything but marriage, which has all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but which applies to the new social institution of same gender “——” (insert new name).
See my prior statements: #s 96,70,49,28
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Skookum:
Don’t worry, I’m sure after your monologue about your own masculinity and MMA experience, I’m sure no one will ever mistake you for a “homo”.
There is such a thing as a minority imposing their will on the majority, just as the majority can impose their will on a minority. Either way, one group abuses the rights of the other, and goes against what I believe in. In this case, the majority was forced to impose their will on the minority due to the threat of opposite action being taken, just as it has been in several NE states.
One can argue against the ‘rights’ of heterosexuals being abused by forcing gay marriage upon society, but when that happens, the views and practices of others, particularly in the religious sense, are forced to change. That is as injurious to a person as punching them in the nose, more so if one sees that by forcing a change upon society of an accepted institution, it changes the entire view of that institution, sometimes to the detriment of that institution.
As has been argued previously, the majority in the country can allow for the civil union of a man/man or woman/woman couple. I don’t think that there is any debate about that. Having said that, the gay groups who push for total victory, meaning the forced acceptance to society of terming their unions as marriages, are merely fighting for the word. It is a dishonest notion to think otherwise.
Compromise does not always mean a capitulation to those who oppose you. Sometimes it means taking what is right about both sides of the issue to reach an understanding. Homosexual groups who ardently fight for couple’s rights similar to heterosexual marriage will find quite a bit of support among those who oppose ‘gay marriage’.
Guess again johngalt.