The whole crusade against homosexuality is and always has been based upon religious doctrine. What ever happened to separation of church and state. Remember, freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion. So stop trying to shove your beliefs down my throat.
We end this rant now so that BB can post another 47 paragraphs of some carefully chosen right wing doctrine.
gag
Hey Lothario!
I was wondering what was taking you so long to respond to me. I loved your retort, you do not disappoint my friend. And I will try not to disappoint you as I always try to give a worthy response to those I respect.
Homophobia is inaccurate and a slam against every individual who may be sickened by homosexuality. After all it is a deviance from the norm. To even intimate that they are “afraid” is simply wrong minded and a way to silence anyone who may speak out against the act of homosexuality.
Words are indeed powerful! No one wants to be branded with the wrong word. Words like “Coward” and ?homophobic? are meant to brand people. The Gay lobby new exactly what they were doing when they came up with “homophobic.” It is inaccurate and tends to silence anyone who is not “accepting” of homosexuality. As we can plainly see now mere tolerance was never the aim. Full acceptance was the hidden agenda.
When you say that the fine people of Nebraska have a “hang up” because they will not accept homosexual marriage that is completely unfair. What happened to the great “toleration” buzz word? The fine people of Nebraska are not being asked to “tolerate” homosexuality any longer. Now the fine people of Nebraska are being asked to change the tradition of heterosexual marriage and “accept” homosexuals into the institution! Tolerance has now been relegated to second place behind acceptance.
If two men desire to have sex with each other, they have a right to do so and that is none of my business. I would never speak out against their right to do so and if anyone decided to make sport of them I would most likely defend them. That my friend is tolerance! However, those of us who are tolerant are now being attacked because we will not change a traditional heterosexual institution in order for homosexuals to take part. That’s no longer “tolerance” is it? Lothario do you see the difference between ?tolerance? and ?acceptance??
You again try to compare the civil rights campaign with the Gay rights movement. This is where your argument actually gets funny (no offense).
As I have previously stated, if being Gay were in fact nature instead of nurture then your argument would still fall short as it is still an “action” that we are discussing. Not a race of people, as in African Americans. Not a gender, as in the woman?s movement, but an action! To follow that up (as I have stated) there is not one piece of scientific evidence that states anyone is born homosexual. How many women have gone to therapy and changed into men, silly huh? Homosexuals however have left that practice gotten married TO A WOMAN and lived happily ever after. Now how could that happen if there was no decision behind the act?
Think we should also have special rights and or exemptions for those wanting to marry children? (Don?t poke fun, 25 years ago everyone would have laughed at Gay marriage). Hey…if they get organized and have enough money perhaps they can get their own lobby group and claim they were born that way. How about those who just have to be married to more than one woman? After all how many men are really monogamous? Let’s have another exemption! We men are not born monogamous. (Actually there is a far better argument for this than homosexuality).
While it is certainly a “minority culture and lifestyle” as you state, is it a “mandatory” situation as in the case of gender or race? Comparing this to gender and race is far reaching and while expected (it is the next step which is always taken) the fine people of Nebraska see through it for what it is!
Finally, no one is being “intolerant of your friends.” It could be that your friends are being intolerant of heterosexuals attempting to get them to change a heterosexual institution. I wonder how many homosexuals would actually be tolerant if heterosexuals attempted to change a 5000 year old homosexual tradition. I think we would see them marching in the street (everyone loves a Gay parade) telling heterosexuals to leave them alone.
I also think that if this issue is pushed any further you may very well see an even bigger backlash than is now occurring! Heterosexuals marching in the street. Can you imagine? Men kissing women in front of the TV camara, how shameful. Their only desire to be left alone by the homosexual community which is well tolerated, but will never be accepted by the majority of heterosexuals in this country!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As I have previously stated, if being Gay were in fact nature instead of nurture then your argument would still fall short as it is still an “action” that we are discussing. Not a race of people, as in African Americans. Not a gender, as in the woman?s movement, but an action! To follow that up (as I have stated) there is not one piece of scientific evidence that states anyone is born homosexual. How many women have gone to therapy and changed into men, silly huh? Homosexuals however have left that practice gotten married TO A WOMAN and lived happily ever after. Now how could that happen if there was no decision behind the act?
[/quote]
Gee, there have been many women who have gone in for sex changes and gone to therapy for it. There have been many men who have become women who have gone into therapy for it. Just as you say there is no evidence that it is biological, there is also no evidence that it isn’t. While there have been men who have gone into therapy and decided to never act on those impulses, how many actually never “feel” gay? Are you saying that because they no longer act on the impulse that it isn’t there anymore? How would you prove this?
You keep bringing up race. The truth is, I can’t act like I’m white because I am CLEARLY black (and I would never want to, but that is beyond the point). The same can’t be said for many very light skinned blacks who grew up in the South during slavery and post-slavery who acted white whenever possible so that they wouldn’t have to deal with the same hardships. How would that differ from the point you made? Does that mean that those light skinned blacks were “cured” of blackness?
In addition, again, I don’t put this gay issue on the same level as the Civil Rights movement out of clear respect for the hell that an entire race of people had to deal with based on nothing but appearance. I also know my personal stance on the issue religiously but accept that it isn’t my place to publicly deny someone the rights to act in a certain way based on nothing but bias.
[quote]gojira wrote:
The whole crusade against homosexuality is and always has been based upon religious doctrine. What ever happened to separation of church and state. Remember, freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion. So stop trying to shove your beliefs down my throat.
We end this rant now so that BB can post another 47 paragraphs of some carefully chosen right wing doctrine.
gag[/quote]
The ‘freedom from religion’ thing has nothing to do with this. That’s a response from someone who is ill informed of the actual intent. It was so a state religion could not be forced on the people, not to take religion completely away from state decisions.
It has only been interpreted as such, and is now used in baseless arguments to back atheist and non christians.
Yah we are all better off now that we can’t say “in God” in our schools. We are all better off now that the 10 Commanments have been removed from all gov’t facilities.
If you’re gonna quote something from the constitution, let’s try and keep it in the original context, not in the new way some have decided to interpret it.
I wonder if those of religion feel if something is being shoved down their throats?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
God I hate NRO. I think a quick reading of the news would reveal there was a little more to the ruling than just romer v. evans.
Also Scalia’s dissent in romer is just stupid, and why didn’t the NRO put up Kennedy’s opinion for romer?
P.S.
My marriage here in Mass. is STILL
not being damaged by gays having equal rights here. Weird, because Pat Robertson swore it would.
Also:
The fact that your marriage is or isn’t damaged is irrelvant to the Constitutional law question at issue, and actually isn’t logically related to the basic argument concerning gay marriage vis a vis heterosexual marriage – it’s more of a going-forward concern in that case.
The opinions of Pat Robertson have absolutely nothing to do with it – last I looked, no one elected or appointed him to any office. You may as well argue what Don Knotts thinks.[/quote]
how many voters does don knotts influence?
exactly. pat robertson and co. have plenty to do with this.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I hate to barge into the “liberal fest” but couldn’t resist.
Just a few corrections for those who are still blinded by all of the PC language that has been thrown at them since they were old enough to turn on the television all by themselves:
Then I hope you won’t mind terribly if we only allow you to vote for one candidate in the next election. Hey, everyone will have an equal right to vote for him – surely you don’t want extra rights, do you?
We’ll also go ahead an give you the right to read any book that’s on this approved list or write about anything on this other list. And, of course, you will have an equal right to do so.
I think you get the point.
Michael Jackson doesn’t look real black these days, so I suppose it’s possible.
As for ‘cured’ homosexuals…given enough time alone with you, a good team of psychiatrists could convince you of anything. Ever heard of ‘thought reform’?
For a more immediate analogy, imagine that you now had to write with your left hand. Sure, you’d get used to it – and you’d look ‘normal’ (if that hand was the societal norm) – but you still wouldn’t be a lefty.
Perhaps, though disgust and fear are often closely linked. I don’t think ‘homorepugnant’ is the word you want, though. Perhaps ‘homoaidia’ (aidia meaning ‘disgust’ in greek?) would work better?
Umm, Scalia’s dissenting opinion may be interesting and all, but it is only a dissenting opinion.
Isn’t the judgement reached in a case in the supreme court simply the law of the land when it comes to lessor jurisdictions?
Why the hyperbole about some lower court adhering to the ruling. Essentially, it should have no choice.
[quote]gojira wrote:
The whole crusade against homosexuality is and always has been based upon religious doctrine. What ever happened to separation of church and state. Remember, freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion. So stop trying to shove your beliefs down my throat.
We end this rant now so that BB can post another 47 paragraphs of some carefully chosen right wing doctrine.
gag[/quote]
Forgive me whilst I go off-topic for a moment here, to comment on how perfectly this post captures the mindset that I see in all your posts.
Essentially, you feel strongly about something, and you don’t care about logic, arguments or evidence.
'Cause that would be, like, you know… gag.
Who wants to understand logic when you feel strongly about something anyway?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Umm, Scalia’s dissenting opinion may be interesting and all, but it is only a dissenting opinion.
Isn’t the judgement reached in a case in the supreme court simply the law of the land when it comes to lessor jurisdictions?
Why the hyperbole about some lower court adhering to the ruling. Essentially, it should have no choice.[/quote]
vroom,
You’re right in that dissents aren’t binding authority, and that all lower courts are bound by the majority opinion.
However, Romer should not be applicable in this case, given how limited it was to its facts. In stretching it so broadly – and then in stretching the amendment at bar so broadly – the judge was doing much more than simply applying the law as laid down by the USSC.
Please revisit this analysis of the part of the ruling for which the Judge claimed to rely on Romer:
Equal protection: The court holds that the Nebraska amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause, citing Romer v. Evans (1996). Here, it’s argument is at least plausible: Romer struck down a Colorado amendment that prohibited all state and local bans on sexual orientation discrimination. I think Romer is wrong, badly reasoned, and vague in its implications; but, while it’s impossible to tell for sure given Romer’s vagueness, I think that Nebraska amendment is constitutional even under Romer.
Romer rested in large part on the conclusion that the Colorado amendment’s “sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.” The Colorado amendment’s defenders urged that the amendment was needed to protect “other citizens’ freedom of association, and in particular the liberties of landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality”; and the Court did not condemn this interest. Rather, it concluded that “The breadth of the Amendment is so far removed from these particular justifications that we find it impossible to credit them,” chiefly because the Colorado courts interpreted the amendment as being extremely broad, covering many situations where no private landlords or employers were involved (for instance, when the government created a nondiscrimination policy governing its own operations).
Here, the law leaves state and local government free to enact bans on sexual orientation discrimination in lots of contexts. The government only mandates that marriage and similar institutions be reserved for opposite-sex couples; and this mandate is closely tied to the government’s desire to reserve the special benefits of marriage for that sort of relationship ? a union of one man and one woman ? that Nebraskans think is particularly valuable to society, and thus particularly worth fostering.
The test that Romer set forth was that the law must have a rational relationship to legitimate state interests, not the very demanding “strict scrutiny” test (which requires narrow tailoring to compelling state interests). This “rational basis” test is traditionally pretty deferential to the government; and while in Romer it wasn’t applied with the normal deference, the Court’s stress in Romer was simply that the law was so overinclusive relative to the interest in protecting associational freedom that it was irrationally broad. Here, the law is a much better fit with the government interest. And it seems to me (and, I’d wager, to the Supreme Court) that the government interest in promoting opposite-sex relationships as the best for society is indeed a legitimate interest, even if it’s one that reasonable minds may differ about.
Nor is it right to argue, as the court does, that the law “goes so far beyond defining marriage that the court can only conclude that the intent and purpose of the amendment is based on animus against [the] class [it affects].” First, the law doesn’t go at all far beyond defining marriage; it clearly covers marriage and its modern equivalents and near-equivalents. It makes perfect sense that as new quasi-marriage statuses are set up to avoid the legal restrictions on marriage, voters would cover these quasi-marriages as well as traditional marriages.
Second, while the law does reflect a sense that same-sex unions are less worthy of public support than opposite-sex unions, the Court has never held that this view is impermissible. Most laws reflect the notion that some conduct is better than other conduct. Unless (and I’ll get to this below) the court really is saying that it’s unconstitutional “animus” to have marriage be opposite-sex-only ? that is to say, unless the court believes that Nebraska has to recognize same-sex marriages ? there’s no unconstitutional animus in Nebraska voters’ insisting that marriage be opposite-sex-only, rather than just leaving the matter to their representatives in the legislature.
Finally, note that the standard canon of interpreting statutes is that they must be interpreted to avoid constitutional problems, when such an interpretation is consistent with the language. For instance, if the court fears that reading the amendment broadly ? for instance, covering co-tenancy contracts, or co-ownership arrangements, among romantically linked same-sex couples ? would violate the Equal Protection Clause under Romer, then the court should read the amendment (quite plausibly) as not being that broad, and only covering marriages, statutory civil unions, or statutory domestic partnerships, not centuries-old generally applicable rules of contract and property law.
Judges should not choose the broadest interpretation of a statute and then strike the statute down because the interpretation they themselves chose was unconstitutionally broad. Thus, the judge’s argument that “a domestic limited partnership” ? a business entity ? “composed of same-sex partners as defined in the Partnership Act could run afoul of [the Nebraska amendment] as it is written” is quite wrong. Reading the amendment as covering business partnerships that just happen to have partners of the same sex isn’t even a particularly plausible reading of the amendment; and it certainly isn’t the only or most plausible reading of the amendment. The judge must therefore choose the reading that is constitutionally permissible under Romer, rather than choosing an unnecessarily broad reading that would then lead him to strike the statute down.
Schattenjager:
You don’t really want to compare voting for one candidate to the homosexual marriage issue do you? Your comparison is lacking. In fact, it can be turned to prove my point. I am for not changing the status quo. So…If you wanted to change the institution of voting for a select minority I would be against that as well. Hence, if you do not like the democratic system of voting then you have options: Don’t vote, move to a country which is not democratic, or perhaps change your thought process. (There are other options). You do not have the right to change the system to suit your particular needs especially when the majority is not inclined to agree…Neither do homosexuals have the right to change the system marriage!
Homosexuals can live with one another and perform all sorts of homosexual acts and live happily ever after. After all it is a free country and I?m very happy about that. However, they must do so without the institution of marriage.
I hope you get the point.
I do like your mention of “thought reform” this intimates that it is possible for a homosexual to “reform” his or her thinking. If that can be done (and neither of us know that it actually can) then it is certainly not genetic. In spite of the Jackson comment he is genetically black, nothing changes that, same case for a woman or a man.
Don?t agree with your linking disgust and fear. I think “disgust and fear” can be linked but I think it?s rare at best. You can be disgusted or repulsed by a plate of broccoli, a man throwing up, a fat lady singing (I had to), someone passing gas etc. No fear involved simply disgust. I do think you can be afraid without disgust as well. One can be afraid of a man with a mask and gun at 3:00am, but no real disgust involved. We can expand our list of fears that do not include disgust: Fear of falling, snakes, public speaking etc. No, I think they are two quite different emotions.
Frankly, I am tired of them being linked when it comes to the topic of homosexuality. I think more people are repulsed, sickened etc. by the act of homosexuality rather than they are scared of it. However, since the term “homophobic” denotes that anyone who speaks out against the homosexual act is somehow laden with fear; less people are inclined to do so as no one wants to get hung with the “fear” label. Silencing much of the opposition is an effective strategy on the part of the homosexual lobby, and the politically correct crowd, however, ineffective relative to accuracy. I’m going to stick with “homorepugnant.” Not as effective at silencing those opposed to Gay marriage, but certainly far more accurate!
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
The ‘freedom from religion’ thing has nothing to do with this. That’s a response from someone who is ill informed of the actual intent. It was so a state religion could not be forced on the people, not to take religion completely away from state decisions.
Yah we are all better off now that we can’t say “in God” in our schools. We are all better off now that the 10 Commanments have been removed from all gov’t facilities.
[/quote]
You’re right on the money in your first paragraph, but your implication about removing a pledge that endorses the existence of a singular God from public school is confusing.
Is it:
Or is it:
If it’s #2, then it makes sense that gov’t institutions not adopt pledges or oathes that endorse the belief in a singular God, right? How can it be #2, and yet gov’t produced documents clearly state that the USA “trusts in God”?
Boston,
Without getting labelled as a left versus right argument (because damn near anything I say is interpreted that way), I don’t know that it is cut and dried that the government actually has any interest in this issue at all.
Once the state has the ability to decide which personal behaviors are best for society, we are indeed getting into dangerous territory. Why limit our laws to actions concerning gays wanting to get married. Perhaps short people getting married to tall people is against what is “best for society”.
Sometimes I don’t think you guys see what doors you are opening in your attempt to make sure that certain morals and practices are curtailed. I’ve said it before, and I don’t mean as right versus left in any way, but at some point you’ll get what you are asking for and you’ll realize only too late what you’ve actually got.
The government should get involved in things only when it really has to get involved in things. Not to play arbitrar between various sections of the populace who are having trouble agreeing on appropriate behavior or what is indeed best for society. We have too much interference and nonsense intrustion in our lives as it is.
That, I suspect, jibes pretty well with a libertarian viewpoint… lol.
[quote]vroom wrote:
And it seems to me (and, I’d wager, to the Supreme Court) that the government interest in promoting opposite-sex relationships as the best for society is indeed a legitimate interest, even if it’s one that reasonable minds may differ about.
Boston,
Without getting labelled as a left versus right argument (because damn near anything I say is interpreted that way), I don’t know that is cut and dried that the government actually has any interest in this issue at all.
Once the state has the ability to decide which personal behaviors are best for society, we are indeed getting into dangerous territory. Why limit our laws to actions concerning gays wanting to get married. Perhaps short people getting married to tall people is against what is best for society.
Sometimes I don’t think you guys see what doors you are opening in your attempt to make sure that certain morals and practices are curtailed. I’ve said it before, and I don’t mean as right versus left in any way, but at some point you’ll get what you are asking for and you realize only too late what you’ve actually got.
The government should get involved in things only when it really has to get involved in things. Not to play arbitrar between various sections of the populace who are having trouble agreeing on appropriate behavior or what is best for society. We have too much interference and nonsense intrustion in our lives as it is.
That, I suspect, jibes pretty well with a libertarian viewpoint… lol.[/quote]
I was chatting about gay marriage with a friend last year. I was arguing that civil unions for gays were the best option. Government benefits for marriage (such as tax credits) are essentially just the gov’t’s way of promoting behavior that is beneficial to society. Why should the government be forced to give the same benefits to gay marriages if that behavior isn’t deemed beneficial to the same degree?
Then my friend asked me: What if the gov’t decided that marriages between African-Americans resulted in divorce at such a higher rate than Caucasian marriages that they were no longer of benefit to society, and thus passed a law prohibiting African-Americans from marrying. He asked if I would support that.
Of course I said no, as that’s blatant racial discrimination, and is thus unconstituational.
He then asked how a ban on gay marriage would be anything other than discrimination based on sex.
Anyone got a good answer to that?
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
The ‘freedom from religion’ thing has nothing to do with this. That’s a response from someone who is ill informed of the actual intent. It was so a state religion could not be forced on the people, not to take religion completely away from state decisions.
Yah we are all better off now that we can’t say “in God” in our schools. We are all better off now that the 10 Commanments have been removed from all gov’t facilities.
You’re right on the money in your first paragraph, but your implication about removing a pledge that endorses the existence of a singular God from public school is confusing.
Is it:
Or is it:
If it’s #2, then it makes sense that gov’t institutions not adopt pledges or oathes that endorse the belief in a singular God, right? How can it be #2, and yet gov’t produced documents clearly state that the USA “trusts in God”?[/quote]
Moriarty
I wish I had a better response than what I’m about to give
It’s my opinion–in sarcasm, of course.
The original gov’t was set up by people who believed in one God. That would explain the existence of those phrases on gov’t documents/money, right?
I think #2 would and probably should be correct, but you are correct, there exists a incongruancy with the language on said documents.
I just personally believe, that the phrases, sayings, speeches, documentation, plaques,statues that exist with this verbage were harmless and their attack is not to make America better, or to not include or because a group is excluded.
It was an attack soley against those that believe by those that don’t. If all of those same people would refuse X-mas and Easter Holiday pay, then I might accept the vorasity of their belief.
I am so tired of hearing about gay marriage. There is NO way that it should be considered marriage at all. Infact I feel that gay is completely wrong and they should not degrade the sanctity of marriage like that. Ofcourse I am a Christian so I can forgive people, so to all gay people realize your mistake and go back into hiding. Just my opinion
On what Moriarty wrote in response to vroom:
I personally don’t think your analagies line up all that well. For almost any
(argued) discrimination, someone could say well what if…
In this case you are talking about something that goes against the meaning of the word marriage as defined by courts for years. To simply say we are now not going to allow (X) is rather-well-simplistic. And to make the comparison racial in tone, simply adds to the rhetoric.
It would be more like maybe changing the definition of mother in child custody cases. We will now define mother as the one best fit to care for, not the child bearer. It just wouldn’t stand up in court even though how can you argue what is actually better for the child.
Definitions are funny things. As our knowledge and understanding of things change, our determination of what is important about an existing definition can change.
This is true outside of the context of the gay marriage issue, in case you think I’m talking about left vs right issues as you are wont to do. I’m merely suggesting it shouldn’t be a surprise that definitions are adjusted from time to time as the nature of society slowly changes.
Don’t assume vroom
i am well aware that definitions change. But at this point in time it hasn’t. Although it appears we may be on the cusp of something with this issue.
Here’s my take though. It’s a big deal because of who’s President, and the perceived agenda. The more liberal jurists are out to make a stand, and in effect are trying to rewrite the constitution. In and of itself, not always a negative. but when ‘most’ Americans are against it, most representitives are opposed to it, and still they pursue their own agenda. This I have a problem with.
What’s wrong with civil unions with the marriage benefits? Why is this not a workable solution? It’s an attempt to justify their abhorent lifestyle-IMO.
On what Moriarty wrote in reply to vroom:
I don’t think that argument makes any sense. There are all kinds of laws prohibiting all sorts of behavior. What makes this particular behavior any different than someone elese’s?
If someone wants to marry their sister why should they be “discriminated agasint?” If someone wants to marry their daughter, why should they be discrimiated against? If someone wants to marry a group of women, why should they be discriminated against?
Ask your friend if he has ever heard of a successful society in history where everything is alright.
His argument has no power! Anyone who is locked out of any sort of institution can cry discrimination, that does not make it so.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
On what Moriarty wrote in response to vroom:
I personally don’t think your analagies line up all that well. For almost any
(argued) discrimination, someone could say well what if…
In this case you are talking about something that goes against the meaning of the word marriage as defined by courts for years. To simply say we are now not going to allow (X) is rather-well-simplistic. And to make the comparison racial in tone, simply adds to the rhetoric.
It would be more like maybe changing the definition of mother in child custody cases. We will now define mother as the one best fit to care for, not the child bearer. It just wouldn’t stand up in court even though how can you argue what is actually better for the child.[/quote]
I totally understand where you’re coming from. The analogy isn’t perfect. But still, homosexuality is considered a deviant behavior based soley on the sex of the participants. When you get down to it you have to come to terms with the fact that a ban on marriage rights to gays is a denial of benefits based solely on sex. How do you get around that? If you’re a federal judge, and you interpret the constitution to state that laws cannot be created that deny rights based solely on race or sex, then how could you rule in any way other than to strike down a law banning gay marriage?
Is there another precendent for a federal benefit or granted right that can by denied given that the requestor fulfills all requirements other than being the correct sex (or race)?