Curse you, Adam Corolla! As my faithful readers know (thank you, both of you!) I generally only weigh in on topics where I can find an angle that somebody smarter than me hasn’t already written. This is another one of those ideas that I’d been kicking around for a while but never got around to writing, and Mr. Corolla beat me to the punch. In a recent podcast he pointed out that Gay Marriage is hardly an end point to the debate:
“It’ll be legalized, hopefully, and then you’ll think we’ll be done with it, and then they’ll say, ‘we want to get married at the Crystal Cathedral,'” Carolla said on a recent podcast. “And the guys at the Crystal Cathedral will go ‘no, we don’t agree with it, and according to our faith, a man doesn’t lie down with another man, and a chick who looks like a man doesn’t lay down with another human who drives a Subaru. We don’t condone this.’ There’s a gonna be a march, and then there’s gonna be a thing and it’s gonna go to the Supreme Court again. This much I know … there will be more fighting. it will continue.”
I raised the incrementalism argument when I wrote about this subject last summer, and now with the subject becoming bigger in the news I’m seeing more of the incrementalism that conservatives are rightly concerned about. Here was my take:
Gay marriage was a subject I had never really had an opinion about until around twelve years ago when I read Jesse Ventura’s first book, “Do I Stand Alone?” Mind you, back in 2000 Jesse was still a new governor in Minnesota and a breath of fresh air in the system, not the full time conspiracy theorist he’s become today. On the issue of gay marriage he looked at both sides, and his assertion was that it was wrong to discriminate against two consenting adults from legal benefits from a system that they have paid taxes into based on their gender preference. On the other side, the term “Marriage” has an important spiritual meaning in religions practiced by many Americans, and their views should be respected as well. His solution was civil unions – granting legal rights for gay couples while still respecting the people whose religious views would be offended.
This seems like a reasonable compromise for both sides, and one that I supported then and still continue to do so. In fact, contrary to the leftist notion that conservatives are opposed to “gay rights” polls show that the majority of Conservatives as well as Republicans support civil unions.
Now, this was an opinion that I adopted thirteen years ago, and it still is my opinion today. But look at how the public perception, and particularly in the mass media has “evolved” since that time. Back in 2000 my stance would be considered moderate to somewhat left of center1 in most quarters, depending on the person I’m standing next to. But today? The fact that I don’t wholeheartedly support “Marriage Equality“, or whatever the latest term is to make the leftist position sound centrist makes me some bigoted extremist who is probably ready to throw a white sheet over his head and burn rainbow painted crosses on Harvey Milk’s grave. I go into my arguments in a lot more depth at my link, but while I haven’t changed, the left certainly has. Each step where leftist thought is met “halfway” (or anywhere) automatically becomes the new center to them, and anything to the right of that new line is right wing extremism.
I laid out before two of my concerns as to how we’re already seeing negative impacts of recognizing gay marriage –forcing gay marriage to be taught in schools, as opposed to trivialities like reading and writing, and in preventing children in foster homes from getting placed with families.
When conservatives raise the flag of what will be next down the road, such as redefining marriage for multiple partners, the left just tut-tuts about how they’re overreacting, just as they did when gay marriage was mentioned back in 2000. The problem is that California has already considered polygamy. Jeremy Irons also raised the touchy subject of this possibly leading to incestuous unions, which gets the same chuckle and a head shake reaction. But I ask, why not? Can someone from the left tell me where this issue will be 5-10 years from now? Does this end with “Marriage Equality”? or whatever you’re telling us is now the new center? I look at how our schools are infantilizing our kids today – suspensions for chewing a cookie shaped like a gun, or as a friend whose son is in the Maryland public school system recently told me, the horror of a teacher using a lighter for a science experiment resulted in notes being sent to all of the parents whose kids might have been traumatized by the event. When Baby Bob starts out in school if he calls another kid on the playground “gay”2 is he going to be forced into a modern leftist re-education camp known as “sensitivity training?” And as his parents, will Sister Babe and I also be held accountable for this vile hate speech coming from our child? Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but look at what’s happening up in Canada:
The Diversity Celebrators have their exquisitely sensitive antennae attuned for anything less than enthusiastic approval. Very quickly, traditional religious teaching on homosexuality will be penned up within church sanctuaries, and “faith-based” ancillary institutions will be crowbarred into submission. What’s that? I’m “scaremongering”? Well, it’s now routine in Canada, where Catholic schools in Ontario are obligated by law to set up Gay-Straight Alliance groups, where a Knights of Columbus hall in British Columbia was forced to pay compensation for declining a lesbian wedding reception, and where the Rev. Stephen Boisson wrote to his local paper, objecting to various aspects of “the homosexual agenda” and was given a lifetime speech ban by the Alberta “Human Rights” Tribunal ordering him never to utter anything “disparaging” about homosexuals ever again, even in private. Although his conviction was eventually overturned by the Court of Queen’s Bench after a mere seven-and-a-half years of costly legal battles, no Canadian newspaper would ever publish such a letter today. The words of Chief Justice Burger would now attract a hate-crime prosecution in Canada, as the Supreme Court in Ottawa confirmed only last month.
Of course, if you belong to certain approved identity groups, none of this will make any difference. The Rev. Al Sharpton, who famously observed that Africans of the ancient world had made more contributions to philosophy and mathematics than all “them Greek homos,” need not zip his lips – any more than Dr. Bilal Philips, the Toronto Islamic scholar who argues that homosexuals should be put to death, need fear the attention of Canada’s “human rights” commissions. But for the generality of the population this will be one more subject around which one has to tiptoe on ever-thinner eggshells.
And back to Adam Corolla’s original point, at what point does any church that refuses to perform a gay marriage ceremony get labeled a “Hate Group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center? Leftists like to claim that their goal is to have the state out of the business of marriage. While I think many of them actually believe that, I also think that the ultimate goal is the opposite – to get the church out of the business of marriage. Many leftists follow different religious faiths to various degrees, but at the end of the day Leftism is their one true God that will have no other Gods before it.
So my question to all of the gay marriage proponents today is this: If I adopt your position today and accept it as the new center how are you going to “evolve” over the next decade to turn anyone holding your opinion today into hateful right wing bigotry? Will we see any clergy on college campuses who don’t endorse gay marriage attacked in the same manner that’s happening at George Washington University today? Will Polygamy be perfectly acceptable as the recent article in The Economist argues? Scroll down to the comments if you want to start reading some ideas that are just downright creepy. I’ll be curious to see where the leftist feminist groups will weigh in over the practice of polygamy that is so harmful to women. Or do we start normalizing pedophilia in the name of tolerance?
Do my last few ideas sound over the top and kind of crazy? I’ll be the first to admit that they do, but a decade ago I would have said the same about today’s debate. I like to be proactive, so assuming I give in and surrender to this new normal, I have one question for all of you leftists reading this. Can I just get a heads up as to why you’re going to hate me again a decade from now?
1. For my more conservative readers, I’ve lived in the DC area since 1999. If my civil unions idea seems radical leftist to you keep in mind in this town everyone half a step to the right of Michael Moore thinks their views are mainstream and moderate.
2. And no, we’re not going to be encouraging Baby Bob to call anyone gay or any other forms of name calling. From what I hear this is still a favored taunt used by little kids on the playground, and I’m guessing if gay becomes an outlawed term kids will find other colorful insults to hurl at one another.
@Redteam: LOL…. hi Redteam! I am laughing because I just said pretty much the same thing to ‘ole Georgie poo. He can not site examples because there are none. I told him I was a licensed Realtor and what he says is illegal and does not happen. We Realtors will SELL to anything. Only color discrimination we have is , is your money green? Fair Housing Laws since the 60’s. Fair Housing Authority, it goes on and on and it is a big no no to discriminate against any person with regards to selling or renting property for licensed realtors and also illegal for homeowners to discriminate. If it happens you have the right to file suit. Women can be discriminated against for housing if they are single & have kids, race can be discriminated against for housing, age can be discriminated for housing, ethnicity can be discriminated for housing, hair color can be discriminated against for housing, pets can be discriminated against for housing, handicapped can be discriminated against for housing, religious beliefs can be discriminated against for housing, vehicles can be discriminated against for housing, and oh yea…. gay people can be discriminated against for housing too. That is why here in America we HAVE laws against discrimination for all these things and then some. BUT, if no one follows the laws then who is to blame? Not the 349 million people who were not there, the blame lies with the 2 – TWO parties involved. George sounds more like a child rather then a 60 year old man. Embarrassed is what he should be. Carrying around so much dis-illusion and anger/misery is very visible and ugly. Bet he’s on meds too because I know misery loves company but he has not much company in here besides his side kick Jim, so let’s ask: why are they really in here? Come on guys, fess up. Best.
From AOL:
That’s the kinda crap the gays want to push on others. Why do gay persons have to insist that they be allowed to ‘supervise’ a group of young boys? If I had a 12 year old son in the Boy Scouts and he wanted to go on a weekend campout and I found out that the only adults accompanying them were gay, there is no way I would let him go. I don’t care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom but I sure don’t want them to be the only adult there.
@George Wells:
You seem to think that people should be forced to support your life style, in spite of whatever objections they may have. Let’s see if you are honest enough to answer some questions:
If I owned an apartment complex, and I did not want to rent to you because you are gay, do you think I should be forced by law to rent to you? Do you apply that same standard if I do not want to rent to openly KKK members or openly neo-Nazis? Should I be forced, by law, to rent to them although I find their beliefs abhorent?
If I own a business, and my business philosophy is directed by my religious tenets, and I don’t want to hire you because you are gay, should I be required to hire you anyway? What if I own a Catholic religious supply company? Should the law force me to hire you inspite of the fact that you will damage my business if you are openly gay at work? Do you feel that the law should force kosher butchers to hire Muslims? Should the grocer, who caters to Italians (there are many in St. Louis on the Hill) be required to hire someone who speaks only Polish when 99.9% of the clientel speaks Italian?
In my state, I can fire you if you do anything I don’t like, like wearing black socks to work.
This is nothing more than brute force of the law being applied to those who have invested their time, and their money, in building a business or a rental property. It is not like there are no other options for gays. Just as in the case of the gays who are suing the florist who refused, on religious grounds, to supply flowers for their “wedding”, are you telling me there were no other florists available to that gay couple? Hell, half the florists I know are gay. And what about the case where a lesbian couple sued a photographer because the photographer refused to photograph their “wedding” based on her religious conviction? Was there no other photographer available to provide the same services?
And one other question I’m sure you won’t answer: if it was all about Lawrence and the right to conduct yourself as you please in the privacy of your own home, how would an employer, or a landlord, know you were gay if you did not reveal what gays demanded the right to keep private?
This is why, in the end, these kinds of actions on the part of gay activists will wind up biting you in the ass. If I build a business, a rental property, it is mine, created by my own labor and money, and I should not be forced to do anything that goes against what I personally believe. Yet, gays push, and push, and push, and sooner or later, the pendulum will swing in a direction you don’t want it to go. No one likes being pushed around, not gays, not straights.
Veritas
you said it all,
sadly we are regressing and not toward the past backward
but toward down into THE MIDDLE EARTH, where we can mix with the WORMS,
who find us disgusting,, and hurry toward the surface to get rid of us,
they even refuse to nibble on our brain cells,
yes how far down will we sink?
that depend on the 47% how heavy they are.
but don’t you give up on us, because there will be a time , coming not soon enough,
but coming for a super human to dig us out.
which will be the real end game for all the libs and the corrupts
bye
@All of the gay marriage supporters: Sorry, I should have been clearer in my last question – where do you see this issue in ten years? Assuming that recognition of gay marriage becomes the law of the land do you see this as the end point? Identity politics means permanent victimhood, so I just want to know what you’ll be calling your next civil rights struggle and why you’ll be hating the rest of us in ten years.
Check RedTeam’s #52 for an example of what I see happening
@Brother Bob:
You are not going to get an answer, at least not an honest one. There is no end to the demands of those who claim victimhood. You want an example? 50 years after the Congress, unconstitutionally, applied voting rules and restrictions on the southern states to prevent discrimination against minorities, those rules and regulations are still in effect, preventing states like Texas, now a minority majority state, from implementing Voter I.D. laws that would actually end disenfrancisement of minority voters who have their votes cancelled out by illegal voting in their own districts.
It will be the same with the Gay Agenda. No end in sight. You see, George is quite clear in his goals. If, for any reason, I don’t want to rent to him, or give him a job, it doesn’t matter that he may not fit my requirements, he’s gay and he has a right to what I built and own. I think he has expressed his mindset quite clearly, actually.
Same with Hlavac who tries to get articles printed on every conservative website he can find. Yet, on his own blog, he is quite hateful to those of us he calls “straights.”
In all of this thread, has either one of them denounced the actions of people like the Sisters of Perpetual Outrage, dressed in their outragous costumes, that went into a Catholic Church during Mass and threw glitter on the priest and those taking communion? Or the suing of businesses that, due to religious beliefs, denined gays services? Or the horrible attack on the BSofA? Have either one of them denounced the Folsom Street Parade and fair in San Francisco? How about a gay activity called “freaking out straights” that many gays participate in? Or demanding they be allowed to march in St. Patrick’s Day parades wearing their obscene costumes and carrying their little rainbow flags? No. And that should be the answer to your question.
THE GAIS don’t want the marriage that much ,
they want the benefices of the couple united by the civil law ,
they want security in their assets to protect themselves and the couple they are in,
the future dangers are the introduction of more than one partner adding to their family,
which is now no more justified if a law is favoring them,
I can see from here the fight for gaining access to the genuine couple assets if one die,
a big rift in the survivors of the menage a trois, or 4 or more, if so.
law suit, shame exposed, a real hatefull fight for the money, no more restraint,
but more copycat multi couple doing the same ending in tears and hate,
it is there now in the big OBAMA DIVIDE multiplye by a lot,
so what is one more group join in to your future,
and promiss not to cry when it come to hit you, promiss not to kill some who got greedy,
you are now being warn seriously, and you might just think to live with what you have now,
peacefully, than what you can perceive of your future with your companion, you see how the left wing can treat you now
wait till you get to the future it will triple.
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, you are mostly correct, but one thing is:
they don’t care about the ‘marriage’ but they do want the church to be ‘forced’ to perform the ‘marriage’.
That’s part of the ‘end game’. What happens when someone insists that they have the right, in the privacy of their bedroom, to be ‘married’ to 4 or more? To be married to their ‘of age’ son? or daughter? Do they are do they not have the right to do so, if they feel it is the ‘one they love’?
Redteam
hi,
yes you touch an important fact, which is bound to happen for some without moral
meaning the most perversion moral of all. and once they have the paper given them rights,
as we know human cannot stop their quest for expansion, this time on the bestial inner core
for some would surface by just saying; WHY NOT IF I FEEL FOR THAT PLEASURE?
bye
Redteam
and the pervert as it is now are arrested and put in prison for the term depending on the judge,,
so how this would play out, by having the right of homosexsual to marry, and for some break of and marry, and break of and marry like many on the other side having had many partners,
specially in HOLLYWOOD mindset of many corrupting the sanctity of marriage,
the gays would say, what’s good for the geese is good for the gander,
hey now it make me think that there is money to be made in there, how? easy to figure it out,
bye
Funny how the left invokes “the wall of separation” when it comes to crosses on public property, but is standing ready with a sledge hammer to dismantle that wall when the state decides to impose its will on the church.
snit
hi, I think some STATES will do anything the FEDS will ask of them,
they have also forbiden crosses on the tombs of veterans,
The “Separation of Church and State” is on the surface a “pretty” thought that was one of Thomas Jefferson’s favorites, but in practical terms it has been a Pandora’s Box of litigation for the United States. Over the last 50 years, there have been hundreds of cases decided by SCOTUS in which the separation of church and state was a central component of the arguments brought, and experts generally agree that the decisions rendered are at best inconsistent.
On the one side are the statements in the constitution expounding upon “freedom of Religion,” and sometimes this freedom is interpreted as “freedom FROM religion” and sometimes it is interpreted as “freedom to follow whatever religion you CHOOSE”. On the other side are the many references (same document) to God. Clearly the Founding Fathers fealt obliged to acknowledge a Supreme Being as the true source of the “rights” which the constitution proclaimed.
But as is often the case, many different interests were represented and made contributions to the writing of the constitution, the result being a collection of statements that imply an assortment of both states rights and individual liberties- neither of which instruct the courts favorably toward organized religions. So here then is the conflict between “church and state,” found when taxation and Church money-making collide, when constitutional principles of equality (and the state laws that deliniate them) and the views of some religions regarding homosexuality collide, and on and on. The SCOTUS is endlessly called upon to arbitrate disagreements over just where to draw the line. While there are frequent complaints concerning “legislating from the bench,” I’m not sure what other mechanism could be employed to resolve problems in which results of the well-intended legislation run afowl of constitutional principle.
The question of an “end game” is I think a good one to ask, as one wonders in a chess game what consequences will obtain for a given move on the board. In the same breath, I think the question also suggests fear of the unknown: “Will the CERN collider create a Black Hole that devours the Earth?” or “What boogyman lies under the bed?” A study of the decisions of the SCOTUS should reveal that while occasionally one decision can be seen in retrospect to have suggested another step in the same direction, there are just as many that suggest the opposite. Incrementalism, when it occurs, is not a result of precedent but of a compelling reason to continue in a particular direction.
While this issue (gay marriage, marriage equality – whatever you want to call it) is being decided here and around the world, maybe this would be a good time to ask yourselves how you feel about this being a Democracy as opposed to a Theocracy? (The Taliban is a theocracy, holding its adherents to its strict interpretation of Sharia (sp?) law.) While there are admittedly many particulars of our system of government that deviate significantly from a true and simple democracy, it does seem to me that in this country (and in others) the progress being made in the so-called marriage equality arena is being achieved democratically. I will be married in May, in Maryland, a state where the voters approved “Gay Marriage”.
While I acknowledge that in some situations a “pendulum” effect may occur, an examination of civil rights issues does not often find this effect. Were the freed slaves re-indentured? Did women loose their sufferage rights? Rights granted have proven to be more durable than rights withdrawn. I take comfort in this.
And finally, in answer to a few of retire05’s questions:
No, I do not personally support the “in-your-face” tactics of some gay-rights activists. The argument is sometimes made that such offensive tactics draw attention to real problems which have remained otherwise overlooked, but they also enrage those who are easily distracted from legitimate argument and their value is, in the balance, questionable.
And AGAIN, I do not DEMAND anything. I discuss, I question and I ask. I NEVER have suggested that a church or religious organization should be made to act in violation of their tenets, and the SCOTUS has upheld this “Separation of Church and State” with considerable consistency. I appreciate that if a group is receiving public funds, then the argument may be made that its acts should be lawful, but I defer to the wisdom of the courts to adjudicate such conflicts fairly.
Lastly, are you proud to use derogatory terms like “sissy-boy” and “queer” to gain approval for your arguments? When people resort to name-calling, they know they’ve lost. You have my condolences.
@George Wells:
My first question is: where is there a Democracy?
My second question is: Who uses the word queer most frequently? It’s like the N word, mostly blacks use it. Mostly gays use the word ‘queer’. Does it help a gay person feel ‘more gay’?
I think you are looking backwardly at the pendulum. If a church group has a non gay church and they are made to give it up, to admit gays, which way did the pendulum swing for the church group? As I’ve said before, I don’t care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home. But do I care? Yes, because suppose those two ‘consenting adults’ are father and daughter or mother and son? Or two brothers or two sisters? Do you want me to be required to ‘like it’? You’ve heard the saying, where are we headed and why are we in this handbasket?
@retire05: I knew that answer too. I just like to hear them tap dance around it. =8^)
@Redteam:
OK, “Where is there a democracy?” Did I not beg that question? (“While…our system deviate(s) from a …simple democracy…”) I neither suggested that one exists (anywhere) nor suggested that we change our system. Our system does employ some activities of a democratic nature, such as VOTING on candidates and/or issues, and I attempted to imply that using “voting” as a way of allowing citizens a voice in their governance was preferable to other options (such as, but not limited to: a theocracy). In doing so, I made the bold assumption that you are generally supportive of our constitution and the system of government it established. (Sorry if I over-stepped there…) I also was giving a nod to the three branches of government so established, with obvious appreciation of the judiciary, among whose responsibilities include, as Thomas Jefferson put it, “restraining the tyrrany of the majority.”
Per your second question regarding lable usage: I use neither term, finding both to be offensive. I was making reference to retire05’s use of both terms as childish insults. Would it not have been more noble of you to critique the hateful tone HE took rather than wonder who uses one of the terms most frequently? Is the real purpose of this site to discuss issues or just insult people who are different?
About churches being made to do what they don’t want to do… did I not answer that?
“I NEVER have suggested that a church or religious organization should be made to act in violation of their tenets.” Yeah, I get that some “activists” are challenging that freedom, but the SCOTUS sides with the church, just like they sided with the Boy Scouts over the same issue. I don’t understand the alarm being sounded here.
The reasonable, gentlemanly discussion of an issue requires some measure of civility on the part of the participants. I stopped answering retire05 because he lacked the composure some of your other respondents demonstrate. But by no means can or should either of you or anyone else be “required to like it.” That goes for what 90% of the electorate stands firmly behind as well. The 10% is equally protected, and not required to “like” anything. Is anyone here really worrying about thought police?
And actually, honestly, I’ve never heard the question ” where are we headed and why are we in this handbasket?” Without the benefit of having a crystal ball to consult, I can see only a very limited distance into the future. In the months ahead I can see that Delaware, California, Illinois and either Michigan or Wisconsin (I can’t remember which) will establish gay marriage, and three more countries (Uruguay, France and New Zealand) will follow suit. Five years from now? Perhaps 20 or 25 states will have it, but not enough for the SCOTUS to tip the balance. (Also a total of perhaps 25 countries will have marriage equality.) And DOMA Section 3 will be gone but DOMA Section 2 will survive until the SCOTUS has decided that “the fullness of time” has arrived (when somewhere around 35 states have it.) The other odd scenarios you suggest will remain proscribed until such time as attitudes opposing them change dramatically, and I would guess that won’t happen for at least 50 years, if ever. The handbasket? I have no earthly idea.
@George Wells: So you never heard the phrase “going to hell in a handbasket?” It always bothers me when someone refers to the US as a democracy. There is no semblance between a ‘democracy’ and a ‘republic’.
you’re referring to N word and queer? I don’t use either of the words, but I don’t find them offensive because apparently blacks actually like being called the ‘n’ word and same for the ‘q’ word. In fact, almost all the people that I hear use the words are one of the class.
I notice you skate right over the questions about what happens when the person that is in love is the father and daughter or mother and son or brothers or sisters? Do you support their right to live and love who they choose because that’s who they ‘love’? Sex between two men or two women will never be considered to be normal or natural (I know you see a distinction, but I don’t) I do think that nature makes people that are anywhere from 100% male all the way to 100% female. But nature also makes murderers and rapists and child molesters and society (for the present) does not condone these things. So just because mother nature makes it, doesn’t mean it’s copacetic.
Redteam
MOTHER NATURE,has been secure and gave us mostly what is natural,
and repaired what is unnatural the best she could,
we human have been on the road to perdition by taking a false and make it a right,
the animals we notice stayed on the path to natural,
and rejected the unatural,
we human lost it somewhere for self greed to posess the gifts given to other,
and because of it we are on the road to a massive destruction,
be it willingly by promoting abortion of our specie and having the false compassion
of not standing to the push of the unatural imposing multiplying demanding rights
which still remain unatural if making it normal by the justice system,
think of POMPEI, think of LOTH, and there’s more,
@ redteam:
OK, your phrase re.: “handbasket” did not include the “Hell-in-a-” part,” and yes, I’ve heard that one, just did not connect it with the line you gave. Maybe missed it because I don’t associate current events on this subject in such a negative light. I see how you might, though. On the other point, it would be nice if you did not resort to putting words in my mouth so often. I did not refer to the U.S. as a “democracy.” What I said was (and I paste here): “Our system does employ some activities of a democratic nature, such as VOTING on candidates and/or issues…” Surely you can see the difference and will concede the truth in what I actually said.
The two derogatory terms I quoted were retire05’s use of “sissy-boy” and “queer.” I seriously dought that he is either. The point that you seem to have missed was that use of insult (particularly name-calling) in argument is unproductive if enlightenment is a mutual goal.
Of your final point, that I “skated over” your question pertaining to incest and the like, I offered you (and again I paste”): “The other odd scenarios you suggest will remain proscribed until such time as attitudes opposing them change dramatically, and I would guess that won’t happen for at least 50 years, if ever.” Previously I addressed issues of beastiality in much the same way, explaining my rational for discounting the “incrementalism” (or “slippery-slope”) argument. I view those other topics as fringe distractions, but accept that you may not. While I seriously doubt that those issues will ever rise to legality, I would be inclined to first ask in each instance what harm (as opposed to good) might be the consequence, and I would then in any event defer to the popular sentiment… BECAUSE I hold no rationally-based opinions on the subject(s). I have no frame of reference, no context in which to render judgement. OOPS! I take that back. The above disclaimer applies only to consensual relations between adults. Pedophilia and beastiality, murder and rape I am definitely opposed to, as they engage in each case varieties of brutalization. I would hope that you can see the distinction being made here. I’m not sure that in the case of non-reproductive relatives, there would be any benefit served by prohibiting marriage, but there, as in the marriage equality debate, I would leave the question to the determination of states. For reproductive-possible couples, the risks of genetic error associated with in-breeding is established science and should give the state adequate cause to prohibit familial marriage IN SUCH CASES.
I’m off for three days – don’t be hurt if you don’t hear from me soon.
One further point on the “democracy vs republic” thread: In a pure sense of course we are neither. Note the socialistic features of our so-called “safety net” constructions like social security, medicare and medicaid, unemployment benefits, welfare and on and on. The argument could be made that we have progressed further into socialism than either republicanism or democracy. Yet there remain important features of each incorporated into our system of government.
@George Wells:
Two things: first, the use of “sissie boy” was not used by me but your buddy, Jim Hlavac. Secondly, the term “queer” seems to be one of those “Fair use for we but not for thee” terms as I know many, many gays that refer to each other as “queers.” But then, we now have the Gay Agenda that want’s to control the wordsmithing, like no longer calling people “homosexuals” but referring to them as “gay.”
I noticed that you, once again, returned here but still refuse to adress anything I have said here.
retire05
yes I think the name : HOMOSEXUAL is better to define who they are,
they sure cannot deny that name,
the GAY name is confusing for the non INFORMED YOUNG,
it’s even DANGEROUS for them who are normal,
see the younger guy having a drink, a couple of drink he is in a GAI mood, gigeling feel good
and if a GAI is there would ask him, are you gai? yes I am gai,
then the GAY go after him giving him more drinks, and take him home his home for a night of orgy,
which the normal guy is so drunk, he never will remember that night,
that’s the danger, and some other, even for gai woman would happen the same way,
GLBTQ groups refuse to use the accurate term, ”homosexual.”
They would rather romanticize their lives by such terms as ”gay,” which used to mean happy, carefree; “lesbian,” which harkens back to the Isle of Lesbos in ancient Greece where babies were left out to die if they were not perfect; “bi” which hopes to include more than homosexuals; ”trans” which skips lightly over all the nasty stuff these self-mutilators do to get that title; and “questioning,” which is a blatant attempt to drag young people in.
Homosexual is the term that should be used when the issue of same sex marriage is up for discussion.
All else allows the agenda-pushers to define the language to their advantage and away from accuracy.
@Nan G: Well put, and thoroughly correct.
@George Wells: George, refer to #63 where you said: ,
it seems clear that you said, ‘this being a Democracy’. So I didn’t put words into your mouth, you said it.
Here is an interesting quote from you:
Are you really only concerned if it involves ‘brutalization’? Are you insinuating that these things can’t be achieved with love? So you think incest is okay as long as they don’t reproduce? Pedophilia and beastiality do not involve reproduction. But they are still wrong.
I don’t care how you frame it, homosexuality is not natural or normal. I would not put people in jail for doing it, but I also wouldn’t pass laws that’s only intent was to ‘make people accept it’.
@Nathan G
I tend to agree as well. “Homosexuality” is indeed the correct clinical term, much like “Homo Sapien” is the correct term for the so-called “Race of Man,” or “human.” I’m sure you prefer to call yourself a “caucasian homo sapien,” just as “African-Americans” prefer the term “negro-” or “negroid-homo sapien”, both of which have the latin root for “black,” which is of course a technically correct reference to the concentration of the melanin pigment in their skin. And the woman you like so much is most accurately referred to as a “female,” which is precisely what you call her if you are indeed one of the Coneheads from Saturday Nite Live. And doubtless you suggest to her on occasion that she fellate your penis, as using the colloquial term “blow-job” would be so clinically inappropriate. We are ALL guilty of choosing the terms by which we prefer to be called, and we are ALL likewise irritated at times when terms are intentionally abused to arouse passion. There are clinical contexts in which the word “homosexual” is the most appropriate term. In the conduct of civil discourse, on the other hand, well-mannered proponents avoid using potentially incendiary language because doing so distracts everyone from the truth they are attempting to reveal. I’ve been around – language doesn’t disturb me anymore. If it would help you focus on the real merits of the “Marriage Equa… ahhhhhh, the “Homosexual Marriage” debate, then good – I’ll use that term. OK?
I watched as Obama evolved on gay marriage.
Now he holds the exact position on it as Dick Cheney did way back when he was VP!
Once in a while a pol says he/she has now accepted the idea Obama has evolved to.
But they haven’t done a thing to force the issue to a vote.
Hillary Clinton was weighing in on something else, but her words apply to pols with regard their opinions on homosexual marriage:
“What Difference Does It Make?”
As a long-time resident (now moved away) of very homosexually-friendly Long Beach, CA, I can say long term relationships are hard to maintain no matter what your sexual preference.
Letting the fact you can’t get a piece of paper hold you back is simply silly.
Was a time when hetero couples rejected that piece of paper as hopelessly old fashioned.
@Nan G
The “issue” hasn’t been brought to a vote because the numbers are not there to prevail. The 54 senator majority is insufficient to over-ride filibuster, and in the House there isn’t close to a majority, so forcing a vote is pointless. If members of either chamber were worried about popular sentiment, they’d be clammering to approve gun control legislation, which they are obviously not.
On your other question: What difference does it make? I’d have to ask YOU then, what’s all the fuss from YOUR side? If “Marriage” was meaningless, nobody’d care either way. Obviously it DOES matter. And for the record,
I’ve been tight with my partner for 38 years.
@George Wells: Nan – Please stick to the issue at hand – Gay marriage. Your opinion on comparing a legislative vote from CONgress on gun control is irrelevant, untrue and shows your poor reasoning skills. “if members of either chamber were worried about popular sentiment, they’d be clammering to approve gun control legislation, which they are obviously not.” – WOW. FYI Nan: They are NOT for exactly that reason, popular sentiment is NOT for gun control of this manner because 1.) we already have it and 2.) our constitution of law says it is our right and it is NOT TO BE INFRINGED upon. What is it about those 4 words that you libs do not understand? You need better news sources is what is obvious. YOUR news says 87% want gun control! LOLOLOLOL… that is so disingenuous it is funny. They are reading it backwards to you – see it is really 87% do NOT want the federal gov. to control their lives or remove their 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Fool is what you are for saying that. It’s a good idea to check both sides of every story before you put in writing a statement that will embarrass you in front of millions of people. SEE, the truth in America is: we already have back ground checks, and gun control. Checks on mental illness in many places not just gun purchases, drivers licenses also check your mental health. It is in place and has been since the 60’s with the Brady bill in 93 just zipping it all up for further enforcement. SO, what the heck is your presidents gun control orders doing??? They are infringing on the constitutional rights of lawfully abiding citizens, they are punishing people who follow the law NOT the criminals, that is why NO one passes them. Stick to your gay marriage.
Nathan Blue
on 9,
you have some very out of ordinary points that many don’t even think about,
that is what kind of different attractions is there, and where is the difference between the two,
those looking for the other human gender, and those looking for the same gender,
what is it that get one to look twice at another is it the same mindset for both the normal and the homosexual,
I think not the same, I think the normal would have many reason to look twice, they would think of sex yes but with the sense of procreation specialy for woman, so sex take another rank in priority,
but the homosexual is attracted by the sex drive first and that is it he is looking for the physical attraction, nice body or whatever any preference they are stuck on the physic, what they can see,
as opose to the other normal see beyond they see, the inner part of the oposit gender,
edit; so to come to my conclusion, I’m back to say
the HOMOSEXUALS have attractions base on animal driven,
they lack of having evolve to higher inner demand coming from the soul more than the senses,
it could be why they are many of them are so unhappy
with themselves, always searching for that missing link,
which is replace by natural gifts,
like many facets of art form
bye
@Redteam:
#1. The “Democracy-as-opposed-to-theocracy” question was meant to demonstrate a contrast, not provide a detailed discussion of the intricacies of American government. As I have already addressed these complexities adequately, no additional discussion should be necessary.
#2. I find curious your return to the “incest/pedophilia/bestiality” line of questioning. While it is true that the Old Testament lumps all of these into roughly the same bucket of proscriptions deserving of death-by-stoning (which also included misbehaving children, marital infidelity and the cursing of one’s parents, I know of no study that credibly demonstrates a connection between these and homosexuality. Obviously the common thread is human sexuality, but the particular interests of each are more often mutually exclusive than shared.
In an effort to satisfy your curiosity, I attempted to provide an honest answer. I looked up the term “incest” in my Merriam Webster, where I found that the term meant “sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry.” While I understood that “incest” included sex between blood relatives, I was not aware that a legal component was a necessary part of the definition. By this quoted definition, it would seem that the blood-related sexual behavior would cease to be “incest” once it was legalized. PLEASE understand that I am not proposing ANYTHING here, I’m just pointing out what I find to be a curious paradox.
On your question regarding “brutalization,” I was looking for a convenient way to express the distinction between “crimes of violence” and so-called “victimless crimes. A brief investigation into the rationale for anti-incest laws revealed a long history of the general appreciation of the risks of propagating genetic abnormalities (to the collective detriment of the gene pool) associated with in-breeding. Obviously, sexuality activity between brothers or between sisters does not carry this risk, and if the participants are consenting adults, the activity is “victimless.” I think that a rational examination of laws regarding “incest” would necessarily take into account the ages of the participants, the presence or absence of coercion and/or violence AND the potential genetic consequences.
This qualification applied to a sub-set of incestuous relationships does not carry over into pedophilia (which is at the very least criminally coercive) or bestiality. Should brothers or sisters be allowed to marry? I have not located any rational reason why not, but as I think your questions regarding incest are separate and distracting from the question of homosexual marriage, I choose to reserve judgment on them. You risk carrying the argument of “incrementalism” to the point of absurdity: shall we have human-frog marriage? Indeed, what is the point?
#3.. Your final sentence was actually interesting, because you placed yourself well to the left of SCOTUS justice Antonin Scalia. In his angry dissent to the 2003 Lawrence vs. Texas decision, he decried the decriminalization of homosexual activity PRECISELY because he understood clearly that if it (homosexual activity) WAS decriminalized, there would remain no constitutionally justifiable reason to withhold equal rights – INCLUDING marriage – from homosexual citizens. Scalia figured this out ten years ago. Bill O’Riley and Rush Limbaugh get it now. If you can’t see it coming, it’s not for want of my help.
YOU “would not put people in jail for doing it” (Scalia would) but don’t want to “pass laws to make people accept it.” In the fight for Black civil rights, the legal battles continue, with much resistance from whites and with occasional over-reaches, for sure. But the general progress has been toward a closer approximation to the ideals proclaimed in our constitution. I argue in this same direction. My question to you is, if you don’t advocate extermination of homosexuals, exactly what limited, second-class rights for homosexuals do you advocate? (Before you suggest that we already have equal rights, please note that across the land there are thousands of statutory restrictions on the rights of homosexuals, and these are often accompanied by explanations of the animus that inspired them. Arguing that they do not exist would surely be beneath you.) And how does limited citizenship square with the tenets of the constitution?
@deshevlin: YES, DO stick to gay marriage. My point was that there isn’t enough support in congress to move gay marriage foreword, exactly as there isn’t enough support there for new gun control legislation. I made no comment on the validity of polls, and I made no statements regarding 2nd amendment rights. You mistake me for a liberal on 2nd amendment issues.
Here’s another issue I KNOW you all will want to jump in my shit on, so I’m here right now to tell you that on this one you’ve got me dead wrong. There are two law suits moving forward in which a florist is being taken to task for not wanting to supply flowers to a gay wedding. The state’s attorney general is joined by the ACLU in supporting the plaintiff in this case. I disagree with them.
Just as a business has a right to determine which products it will sell or which services it will supply, I believe that a business should be free to decide for itself what it will charge and with whom it will do business. A business should be free to not serve lunch to negros, for example, or a pharmacy should be free to refuse to fill a life-saving prescription for a woman with red hair. If a marketplace is truely a free one, why should the government ever intercede? If the red-haired woman died because the pharmacy was the only one in town and her condition was critical, could her husband not exercise his 2nd amendment perogative and blow the pharmacist’s brains out in what would surely be decided was justifiable homicide? If not, then where do you draw the line? Who decides which services are essential to life, or shouldn’t that be the criterion? Should the right to discriminate be withdrawn if the business receives tax-payer supported benefits?
In my naive mind, business decisions would be better driven by market forces, with bad decisions penalized by loss of business. But in that scenario, minority constituencies are much disadvantaged, and in the same way that the U. S. Postal System is required to deliver mail to rural regions at considerable financial loss, the courts have on occasion decided that unregulated businesess do not always serve the common good.
If today’s gay rights movement was still where it was back in the 60’s, maybe I’d support the fight against the florist. But today the fight is well beyond needing every florist’s voluntary services. Today’s market place is indeed full of businesses eager to serve gay folk, and the time when governmental motherhood on this hot-button issue has expired. Not every skirmish is worth fighting.
@George Wells: @<a
Once again, you try to equate homosexual “rights” with the battle for civil rights for blacks. Since discrimination against blacks was based soley on being able to identify a black visually, I am still waiting for you to tell me how I can tell someone is homosexual simply by looking at them.
Again, what was Lawrence about? It was not, as the homosexual activists stated at the time, about marriage, joint tax returns, et al. It was about the right to conduct yourself, in the privacy of your own home, in a manner of your choosing. But that wasn’t enough, was it? Once that hurdle was cleared, the gay liberation movement went on to the next demand.
You blather on a lot about this, but never really name what rights are denied to homosexuals. You may list those rights such as real estate rights, but ignore the fact that if you go to rent an apartment, the landlord has no way to know that you are homosexual unless you out yourself. Why do gays, who claimed to only seek privacy in Lawrence feel the need to make their private lives public? Again, if there is a way to visually tell someone is a homosexual, you need to point out how that is done.
Again, you are using the example of discrimination using the visable as the reason. How do I tell someone is gay by looking at them?
@retire05
Thank you for the civility you demonstrated in your last. I get your animus and can live with it, but name calling demeans your arguments unnecessarily.
I did happen to use examples of discrimination that was visually based, but I did so because I thought that those examples would be the easiest for you to understand, not because wrongful discrimination only occurs in cases where the characteristics being discriminated against are visually identifiable.
You suggest that the battle for Black civil rights was based exclusively on the ability to visually discern an individual’s (or a race’s) color, but that is not the case. For one thing, blind whites are not exempt from anti-discrimination measures, but much more importantly, no court or legislature has ever ruled that a class of individuals must be visually identifiable in order to qualify for protected status. Blacks are (usually) visually identifiable, but that is the exception more often than the rule. For example, the courts, legislatures AND the constitution protect freedom of religion, while an individual’s religious affiliation or lack there-of is not visually discernable. An atheist or a Southern Baptist or a Catholic must self-proclaim in order to be identified, but they are eligible for equal treatment under the law all the same. Same with veterans – you can’t tell from looking. Where in the constitution does it suggest that rights are dependent upon your or anyone else’s ability to visually identify what type of person is being considered? Nowhere.
Conversely, it would seem that you are suggesting that the only way a homosexual should be eligible for equal rights would be for him to hide the truth – to go back in the closet, to lie. That would amount to taking away equal rights BECAUSE a person identified themselves as homosexual – told the truth… do you really intend for your argument to lead in that direction? That would punish not just homosexual behavior (now protected by the Lawrence decision) but homosexual orientation itself, which is rather… archaic.
What rights are denied?
One example: The Commonwealth of Virginia enacted a constitutional amendment a few years back that was intended to exclude homosexuals from the institution of marriage. The Commonwealth of Virginia was within it’s states’ rights to enact such a measure. However, it went further, rendering void any powers-of-attorney, wills, or any other contractual agreements between homosexuals which had the effect of arranging any of the rights and/or priviledges which automatically confer upon lawful marriage. In this instance, a homosexual may give power of attorney to a perfect stranger but may not do the same to a loving partner. (That’s a right denied…) Hospitals can obay directions given by a total stranger holding a medical power of attorney but are forbidden to honor the medical power of attorney held by a homosexual lover. I experienced this latter discrimination first hand when a hospital refused my partner’s instructions (he already had a medical power of attorney) when I had been rendered unconscious by morphine after a back injury – he wasn’t a “member of the family.” I have no doubt that this law will eventually be found “unconstitutional,” but this process of overturning discriminatory laws takes time and money, and as a small minority, resources are limited. There are thousands of other examples. Do you really want to get bogged down arguing over each one of them? I suggest you google “Homophobic Laws in the United States” if you really think none exist.
@George Wells: George, while most of your statements are believable, a couple are not.
Does it say on the written power of attorney that the person given power is ‘perfect stranger’ or ‘homosexual partner” if not, how does the person distinguish the situation in order to deny the homosexual vs granting the ‘perfect stranger’ , I strongly suspect that the truth will indicate that this is not true. This statement appears to be a re-statement of the above:
Again, did your written medical power of attorney state that the holder was a homosexual lover, or ‘total stranger’? Can you point me to the specific statute that says “hospitals can obey direction given by a total stranger holding a medical power of attorney but are forbidden to honor the medical power of attorney held by a homosexual lover”, I’m gonna guess that you can not point me to that statute. I’m sure there are ‘real’ examples that could be used, but it demeans your argument when you use an example that most likely is only true in your mind. Do you intend to say: ” he wasn’t a “member of the family.” that the total/perfect stranger ‘was’ a member of the family?
@retire05
Postscript: I find it amusing that you are so concerned about how to tell that a person is homosexual. In bygone times, the military would take a recruit’s word on the subject (self-proclamation) and discharge him on the spot, but during the height of the Vietnam War, they actually REQUIRED some proof (photos, love-letters, perhaps a kissing demonstration) because so many recruits used the claim to get out of the Draft.
And on the Lawrence case (and I apologize for erroneously referring to it as the Hardwick vs. Texas case earlier, as that case’s decision was overturned by Lawrence.) that case was really about the constitutionality of criminalizing homosexual conduct. Decriminalization of homosexual conduct was certainly the most consequential effect of the decision rendered. Yes, it did turn somewhat on the privacy issue (public sex is still against the law, thankfully,) but homosexuals were not fighting for the right to do what they wanted to do in the closet, ever. It just happened that in the particular case of Lawrence, there was an additional component of privacy (no right of privacy is mentioned in the constitution) that added to the outrage and undoubtedly aided in the decision. Most “gay” people do NOT look like the outrageous “queens” you see in street parades, thus your inability to distinguish them in a crowd. And most “gay” people do not want “special” treatment. Just equal rights. Simple as that. The incremental progress toward equal rights is necessary BECAUSE equal rights cannot be achieved in one giant step. It takes many little steps. You think each successive step will be the one that ruins everything, brings God’s wrath, whatever. But they are all just little steps toward equality. If one step here or there gets out of line, the courts will eventually assist in its correction, just as has happened with affirmative action and school busing.
@George Wells:
And what was Lawrence really about? It wasn’t just some cops who broke into a man’s home, violating his rights of privacy. It was a swatting caused by a jealous homosexual lover who called in a false police report about “a black man waving around a gun.” It then turned into a “privacy” rights case, that worked its way all the way to the SCOTUS. But the fact remains, it started as a lover’s spat.
My objections to you are that you are dishonest. There is no such thing as marriage “equality.” The laws, as they are currently, apply equally to gays as they do to straights. In what state is there the question “Are you gay?” on any marriage license. Do you deny that a gay man that the “equal” right in every state to marry a gay woman?
And you are not honest in what the goals of the gay agenda really are; normalization. Sorry, that ain’t gonna happen, Bubba. Sodomy is not a normal action of humans.
@Redteam:
Copied from the 2006 statute: “This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage.” This obtuse jargon is approximately one half of the amendment to the Virginia constitution I am refering to. The other half is virtually indistinguishable from this statement. While it was widely agreed by both sides of the debate that the purpose and effect of this amendment was to prevent homosexuals from using powers of attorney and other contracts to secure some of the protections and rights that convey automatically upon marriage, some opponents of the measure held that it also had the unintended effect of placing the same restrictions on unmarried heterosexuals.
The key issue revolved upon the word “intends,” with the presumption that a power of attorney or other contract given to a non-lover (or “stranger” for want of a better word) would not have the INTENT of approximating the rights and priviledges of marriage, but for gay or straight lovers it would. This nullification of rights was justified as a protection of traditional marriage, strengthening traditional marriage by weakening homosexual relationships. Voiding homosexsual’s rights was the intent and the effect of the amendment – can you suggest any other purpose?
As written, the amendment is clearly unconstitutional, and as a result the Commonwealth has been reluctant to act upon it, leaving the legality of all homosexuals’ contracts in question. As I pointed out, hospitals were refusing to honor gay medical powers of attorney, but they are now beginning to accept them, as the Commonwealth is not pressing the issue. But the law, as wrong as it is, remains freshly on the books and has a chilling effect upon any homosexual’s efforts to write contracts. Should a suitable case surface, money and counsel are ready to take it all the way to the SCOTUS. The effort should not be necessary in the first place.
To your question of whether or not contracts state specifically that the parties are or are not “homosexuals” (or lovers), why should that matter? In the absence of self-proclamation of homosexuality, the normal assumption is that everyone is heterosexual and this need not be iterated. But in the medical context, one’s doctor should be thoroughly familiar with all relevent facts including one’s sexual orientation, and this conveys also to emergency room staff. Your side argues too often that gays should keep their truth secret, but as you keep a photo of your wife on your desk at work, or walk hand-in-hand with her, gays want the same. It isn’t an equal world yet, but we’re fighting for it.
The problems with marriage: terribly high divorce rates, falling marriage rates, rising numbers of unwed mothers and out-of-control children are not the fault of homosexuals. The sooner the real problems are addressed the better.
By the way, thanks for finding some of my conversation “believable”. I’ll take this opportunity to thank YOU for participating in this discussion (retire05 as well), because I think that the more thoroughly these issues are discussed, the better each side will come to understand the other. If people stay ignorant, what is gained?
All:
SCOTUS justice Antonin Scalia wrote this in his dissent to the Lawrence case, the decision of which overturned anti-sodomy laws in all states:
“Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?'”
I agree exactly.
@George Wells: I don’t think any government should be stating what sexual acts they approve or disapprove of between two consenting adults in their bedroom. I’m assuming the consenting adults are legitimately together, but I don’t care to define that.
@George Wells: George, this quote:
Is considerably different from your statement:
It basically says that your married partner can execute your power of attorneys, but no one else. That seems to ‘exclude’ perfect strangers as well as ‘homosexual’ partners. And it prohibits anyone from setting up a pseudo-marriage/union just to get around that law. It certainly doesn’t seem to apply in the situation you mentioned:
The law only allowed someone you were married to, to exercise the medical power of attorney, ‘not a perfect stranger’ vs a ‘homosexual partner’. I said that I don’t believe you can show me a written law that allows a perfect stranger to execute your MPOA and not a homosexual lover. I stand by that. It is my opinion that any person holding a person’s legal MPOA should be allowed to execute it, married, male, female, etc. It should not be limited to just a spouse.
Redteam
how about if he make a contract sign by a lawyer, that this friend
has the power of decisions, cited in the contract, if he is ever render unable to do it, himself,
and those decisions are enumerate in the contract.
bye
@ redteam:
You said:
“It is my opinion that any person holding a person’s legal MPOA should be allowed to execute it, married, male, female, etc. It should not be limited to just a spouse.” THANK YOU VERY MUCH! You get it! Since when can a state qualify a contract’s legitimacy upon the parties’ characteristics? Any way you cut it, the Virginia Marriage Amendment interferes and abridges the rights of ANY individuals from executing ANY contracts with persons to whom they are not legally married. That’s gotta be unconstitutional! When it was pointed out to the delegate to the general assembly who authored it that the amendment had the afore-mentioned effect, he swore that that was not his intention at all, so with his assurance that he meant well, the wording was kept.
Courts, however, are inclined to take the written word at face value and place little stock in the intent colume. It will be overturned on constitutional grounds as soon as a suitable case surfaces – like I said, everyone is afraid to abide by this amendment because of the consequential costs of litigation. It’s a plainly bad law, but it is one that targeted homosexuals (it was widely appreciated in Richmond that homosexuals were the real target) and I pointed to it as an example. If it helps, Virginia also still has its anti-sodomy laws on the books (About 7, maybe ten other states still do as well) in spite of the Lawrence decision invalidating them. Before Lawrence, the anti-sodomy law was used exclusively against homosexuals, never against heterosexuals. Animus, maybe?
We also have a law that allowed the police to arrest gays for meeting at bars, clearly in violation of the constitutionally protected freedom of assembly. (After Lawrence, the arrests stopped, but the law remained. The justification of that law was understandable: homosexual acts were criminal by statute, and the assumption was made that homosexuals committed homosexual (criminal) acts and that a meeting place for homosexuals enabled the commitment of those crimes. But why keep these archaic laws on the books? Animus.
To your point that my statement about powers-of-attorney was worded differently than the amendment: of course it was. The amendment’s wording was, for starters, unconstitutionally vague, as it left huge questions as to exactly what it intended to invalidate. My statement did not dissect and analyze the statement thoroughly – that wasn’t necessary. I gave you the consenses legal opinion of the most glaringly unconstitutional implications of the amendment, which I hoped would suffice That you took issue with the amandment on slightly different grounds than I took is heartening all the same.
So what’s your take on Scalia’s comment? (I’ll remind you: “If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?’”).
We can analyze Scalia’s dissenting opinion ad-nausium, but the logic of it is inescapable.
Antonin Scalia is the most conservative of all the SCOTUS justices and certainly one of the sharpest in the court’s history. He’s your intellectual clean-up batter, and unless I’m mis-reading him terribly, he’s saying that there is no legitimate reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry, now that homosexual conduct has been decriminalized. Did I miss something? Hey, he’s your boy!
@Redteam:
P.S.: Either the Virginia marriage amendment discriminates unfairly as it unconstitutionally restricts the rights of citizens to enter into contracts, or it restricts contract law indiscriminately. That the amendment’s design was intentionally homophobic or not is a moot point. Either way, the law is unconstitutional.
George Wells
yes it’s not right for anyone,
some are alone, or lost their partner, and want to give their assets
to another person who help them at some times, so what are they suppose to do,
beside that contract. it demean all those who left their family, or lost them and found a friend
which is the only last person who stick with them till the end,
best to you
@George Wells:
You failed to say that Scalia went on to say:
“This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.”
What Scalia said, in his dissent, was that states had the right to pass laws that were exclusive to them (not designated powers of the federal government under the Constitution) and that the sodomy laws were equally applicable to both homosexual, and heterosexual, citizens consequently those laws were not selective.
Yes, Scalia is wise. And he clearly saw the slippery slope that is now being pushed by activists like you.
Do you think polygamy should be legal? How about consentual incest? Agree with that?
@ilovebeeswarzone: Yes, certainly.
@George Wells: George, you certainly can read many things/reasons as to why the law is worded as it is in Virginia. But let me say that my reading of it is that Virginia intended for only the spouse of a person to make life or death decisions. For that to be the case, a person would have to have a spouse. It forbids forming some alliance similar to a marriage just to circumvent the law. I have no problem with that law, as written. I feel that if the spouse is legally sane and has a MPOA that should be all that is required to execute that MPOA. It does not refer to who may have a MPOA for a person that they are not married to. I would think that it would be no different from a Power of Attorney in that if properly executed, it would be legal. They don’t say in what you quoted. But I do see the logic in allowing only a spouse in the case of a married person on a MPOA. I think it would/should be worded thusly: Being of sound mind and not having a spouse, I appoint ‘So and So” to hold and execute my MPOA in the event I am incapacitated and unable to make my own decision. In this case So and So could be a ‘perfect stranger’ or homosexual lover, a brother, a sister, etc. I don’t see where that is prohibited in what you quoted.
I have no problem with the police arresting persons that are illegally assembled and are conspiring to break the law. I’m sure that law is not now enforced in any state.
When a law is rendered unconstitutional, it is normally then, not enforced anymore. Very seldom does any state ‘remove’ the law off the books. I remember reading recently that our town still has a law on the books that any automobile operating after dark has to have a man walking in front of the car with a lantern to light the way. While it hasn’t been declared unconstitutional, as far as I know, it is not enforced but is still ‘on the books’.
You said:
I am sure that you do recognize that legal opinions are ‘in the eye’ of the beholder. If a gay person is giving their opinion, I feel sure it has a slant toward their ‘point of view’. I don’t read anything at all ‘anti-homosexual’ in the write up as quoted. It only seems to be addressing that only a spouse of a married person can execute a MPOA and no pseudo union can be set up to bypass the intent of the law.
@retire05:
“the sodomy laws were equally applicable to both homosexual, and heterosexual, citizens consequently those laws were not selective.” I agree with you completely that the anti-sodomy laws are written to apply equally to homosexual and heterosexual sodomy. The problem with them was that while the vast majority of sodomy being performed was between heterosexuals (“blow jobs” are considered “sodomy” as are all other non-vaginal penetrations) it was only homosexual sodomy that was being prosecuted. The constitution’s provision of “equal protection” does not permit such selective enforcement of the law. This problem of selective enforcement called into question the purpose of all anti-sodomy laws and contributed to the decision to find them unconstitutional.