Historic Same Sex Marriage Trial About to Start

[Avvocato Effetti]

A bigger load of BULLSHIT I've never read. Fear mongering and pure lies sold to mindless idiots through millions of dollars in church backed advertising is what got that worthless piece of legislation passed...and just barely I might add.

It sickens me that Prop 8 passed.

The passage of Prop 8 is one of the few good things to come out of California in the last 10 years.

Next.

 

[Rainsford]

While I support gay marriage, using the courts to make it happen is the wrong approach. Doing so will ensure it becomes a long-term lightning rod culture war issue like abortion that is corrosive to the political process. Give it a couple years and the people will allow it to happen via democratic means, and will be a much more durable solution. While I know it will be discouraging for gays to wait for the country to come around, I think it will result in a better long-term result.

I unfortunately have to agree. Culture is clearly shifting, in a relatively short amount of time the anti-gay marriage folks will be in the minority. And while I don't think our laws should be based entirely on the will of the majority (that's why we have a constitution, to prevent mob rule), I think in the long run we're better off beating the bigots with votes instead of court decisions. It's easy for cultural conservatives to whine about the biased courts...if we have the "will of the people" on our side, that's pretty much game over.

 

[Rainsford]

Yeah, you progressives love democracy and the "little guy," at least until they vote a way you don't like and then your authoritarian streak comes out to play.

We don't live in a pure democracy, and there is a good reason for it.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

As a Conservative Christian, I am willing to allow civil unions between homo’s.

We have to pick our battles, this is one that we can let slide.

When it comes to allowing homo’s to have their union defined as a marriage, we must not allow it. It allows our definition of marriage to be denigrated, cheapened and made into a freakish, anything goes, event.

 

[PJABBER]

I unfortunately have to agree. Culture is clearly shifting, in a relatively short amount of time the anti-gay marriage folks will be in the minority. And while I don't think our laws should be based entirely on the will of the majority (that's why we have a constitution, to prevent mob rule), I think in the long run we're better off beating the bigots with votes instead of court decisions. It's easy for cultural conservatives to whine about the biased courts...if we have the "will of the people" on our side, that's pretty much game over.

In the end you are all gay.

 

[Rainsford]

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

"marriage" or any such other thing is something that is ACKNOWLEDGED by the institution recognizing it. It has EXACTLY ZERO to do with emotion - especially not "love". You morons keep trying to make this an emotional argument when it is anything but one. This is a legal issue - nothing more - nothing less.

IMO, what this ruling will tell us, is if states still have a right to amend their own Constitution or not AND if the SCOTUS will be an activist institution instead of one that uses the Constitution as written to determine law.

That is quite the coldly logical view of the issue, I suppose. Still, I can't help but think that you'd probably not feel the same way about heterosexual marriage.

The problem I have with the "it's a legal issue" argument is that laws have to have a basis in something. If you're arguing for laws preventing gay people from getting married, there must be a REASON. And so far I haven't heard a compelling reason that doesn't require homosexual love to be something less than heterosexual love. Marriage itself may be a legal institution, but it was based on an emotional one.

The idea that you can oppose gay marriage but have no problem with gay people and gay relationships is ridiculous. If gay relationships are just as good as straight ones, why can't gay people have the same institutional recognition?

 

[Rainsford]

As a Conservative Christian, I am willing to allow civil unions between homo’s.

We have to pick our battles, this is one that we can let slide.

When it comes to allowing homo’s to have their union defined as a marriage, we must not allow it. It allows our definition of marriage to be denigrated, cheapened and made into a freakish, anything goes, event.

If "conservative Christians" are the ones who get to define marriage, it would seem to be a violation of the 1st Amendment for the government to recognize it at all.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

If "conservative Christians" are the ones who get to define marriage, it would seem to be a violation of the 1st Amendment for the government to recognize it at all.

As Conservative Christians, we will use our authority as US Citizens to push our agenda.

In the same way that Paul used his position as a Roman Citizen to gain favor and open doors for his agenda.

The agenda is the cause of Christ. We are not looking to establish a State religion.

 

[Craig234]

Yeah, you progressives love democracy and the "little guy," at least until they vote a way you don't like and then your authoritarian streak comes out to play.

That's a nice lie. So, now, protecting people's rights from having them stripped by bigots is undemocratic and authoritarian.

Stop censoring Glenn1! Oops there i go being authoritarian. Stop putting Glenn1 in jail for his religion! Oops, authoritarian again. Don't ban Glenn1 from eating in that restaruant freely! Sorry, authoritarian.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm not fine with either one. I'm fine with #1 only. #2 is too nebulous and allows groups to have their rights infringed upon by people who disagree with them.

What rights would those be?

 

[PJABBER]

The problem I have with the "it's a legal issue" argument is that laws have to have a basis in something. If you're arguing for laws preventing gay people from getting married, there must be a REASON. And so far I haven't heard a compelling reason that doesn't require homosexual love to be something less than heterosexual love. Marriage itself may be a legal institution, but it was based on an emotional one.

The idea that you can oppose gay marriage but have no problem with gay people and gay relationships is ridiculous. If gay relationships are just as good as straight ones, why can't gay people have the same institutional recognition?

It seems the positions would not be contradictory.

Marriage was and is an economic decision. It may or may not have an emotional component, love or hate or something in between.

Romantic love and marriage sort of got together in the late 1600's and became more intertwined in the 1700's, for better or worse.

These days, as before, if we recognize that the prime utility of the institution is for child rearing, we can simplify the discussion.

I think marriage legal and tax benefits should be allowed only for people having children, as a recognition of their importance to our society.

Everyone else can go marry a tree, but call it something else and for God's sake don't subsidize it!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I love my sister yet I cannot marry her even when the California constitution states the marriage is between a man and a woman.

What exactly is your point.

Can a homosexual get married? YES THEY CAN.
You care confusing two different issues. If the law said that marriage could only be between two heterosexual people than you might have an argument but that is not what the California constitution states.

NOTHING in the California constitution forbids a homosexual from getting married.

EDIT: On a side note, I love how disagreeing with someone means that I hate them. Typical liberal attitude that has lead to the demise of support throughout California over those who were against Proposition 8.

You are an idiot, but Criag's counterargument isn't very good.

The fact is that the ban on same-sex marriage is tantamount to gender discrimination, and I know that I've explained this to you before and you were unable to rebut it because it is true.

Under the Constitution, all persons are afforded equal rights. That means any two people should individually hold the same rights as the other.

Now, John can marry Jane under our laws, but Mary does not have the right to marry Jane that John does. Mary does not have rights equal to those that John has. This is plain gender discrimination, and its unconstitutional.

Whinge and whine all you like, but that is a fact, of which I know you are aware, and yet you dishonestly pretend like it doesn't exist in order to prop up your hateful, bigoted agenda.

You are a sad, sad person.

 

[Craig234]

As Conservative Christians, we will use our authority as US Citizens to push our agenda.

In the same way that Paul used his position as a Roman Citizen to gain favor and open doors for his agenda.

The agenda is the cause of Christ. We are not looking to establish a State religion.

Ah, Raisnford, I was just thinking how goods it was that avvocato was being ignored as a troll.

But let's be clear, since you did respond to him then.

Avvocato is clearly an ignorant coward, who hides behind claiming to support a religion he can't be bothered to get right, staining its name to put it on his bigotry, cherry picking its phrases for his own use.

He denies rights to a group he'd like to feel superior to. To hide what he's doing, he pretend its justified by the bible. Confronted the bible actually condemns divorce without adultery, he runs away from the bible.

He's pretty clearly here to get reinforcement how right he is by viewing the forum members as some sort of degenerates who 'prove him right as the only guy who's right' the more they attack him.

Like any cult member, there's not much rational discussion can do for him. We lack the ability to make him face his lies. To make him face his abusing religion the way terrorists do. He's a crazy troll.

He can't add to a discussion. He can just post provocative dogmatic lies and watch the reaction that 'proves him right as the heathen disagree'. He's deluded that his bigotry is religiously belssed to post.

Look at him. 'They will use their authority as US citizens to push their agenda'. What agenda - gay discrimination? Slavery? Forcing people to follow their religion or be jailed or killed? It all fits in his logic.

There's zero respect for the values in the constitution or bill of rights. USE their power to PUSH their agenda. That's not religious tolerance, not free speech tolerance, all of that's unimportant.

All that matters is 'pushing their agenda'. That's not as in 'our religion believes stealing is wrong, so we'll vote against stealing', while respecting others' religious freedom. It's as in 'we don't care what you say, we'll vote any bigotry we want because we don't care if it's bigotry. Concern for others' equal rights is your value.'

You see, pushing bigotry and not worrying about is the same thing Paul did. He says.

Their agenda is the 'cause of Christ'. The fact that divorce outside marriage is the 'Cause of Christ'? Inconvient and ignored. Can't be bothered with a difficult issue, espcially affecting them,

Pick on the small groups. Gays. They're the same people with the same mindset that picked on blacks. Too bad that waqs taken from them, but now it's too difficult.

The guy is a bigot and an ignorant person hiding behind religion, as authoritarian church cults teach their followers to do. He clearly has inadequate real life social contacts to confront his wrongs.

So, he stumbles across AT and dabbles here to see the Heathen show he's right by not agreeing with his oh so right religious spouting.

Muslims see terrorists lying about religion to justify wrong and hope not too many do so. We have Acvvocato lying about religion to justify wrong and hope not too many do so.

Because we do support democracy, there's no protection if the crazies get too many in number. We just point out his errors and look to keep him from winning elections.

Sadly, large double digit percentages of our society are now radicalized like him, if not usually so badly - just not enough to win without some help.

 

[Craig234]

You are an idiot, but Criag's counterargument isn't very good.

So, you're right on the issue, but think you see something with my argument. This should be interesting.

The fact is that the ban on same-sex marriage is tantamount to gender discrimination, and I know that I've explained this to you before and you were unable to rebut it because it is true.

Under the Constitution, all persons are afforded equal rights. That means any two people should individually hold the same rights as the other.

Now, John can marry Jane under our laws, but Mary does not have the right to marry Jane that John does. Mary does not have rights equal to those that John has. This is plain gender discrimination, and its unconstitutional.

I was wrong. You said nothing about an issue with my argument, and IMO stated a somewhat weaker, less clear version of the same argument.

It's correct when each of states it, but I find the analogy to mixed-race marriages you seem to have an unstated issue with near perfect.

Whinge and whine all you like, but that is a fact, of which I know you are aware, and yet you dishonestly pretend like it doesn't exist in order to prop up your hateful, bigoted agenda.

You are a sad, sad person.

Right on the issue, wrong on my post. Oh well.

 

[Craig234]

It seems the positions would not be contradictory.

Marriage was and is an economic decision. It may or may not have an emotional component, love or hate or something in between.

Romantic love and marriage sort of got together in the late 1600's and became more intertwined in the 1700's, for better or worse.

These days, as before, if we recognize that the prime utility of the institution is for child rearing, we can simplify the discussion.

I think marriage legal and tax benefits should be allowed only for people having children, as a recognition of their importance to our society.

Everyone else can go marry a tree, but call it something else and for God's sake don't subsidize it!

You can fight for your unpopular definition after you stop discriminating against gays in the meantime. Until you win that, it's wrong to have gays not have the same rights as non-gays.

 

[Craig234]

That is quite the coldly logical view of the issue, I suppose. Still, I can't help but think that you'd probably not feel the same way about heterosexual marriage.

The problem I have with the "it's a legal issue" argument is that laws have to have a basis in something. If you're arguing for laws preventing gay people from getting married, there must be a REASON. And so far I haven't heard a compelling reason that doesn't require homosexual love to be something less than heterosexual love. Marriage itself may be a legal institution, but it was based on an emotional one.

The idea that you can oppose gay marriage but have no problem with gay people and gay relationships is ridiculous. If gay relationships are just as good as straight ones, why can't gay people have the same institutional recognition?

Why are you giving CAD undeserved credit, saying his position is 'coldly logical'?

He's equating protecting equal rights for gays with states being unable to amend their constitutions.

A black person eating at a restaurant is an economic, legal transaction too.

He could make the same argument, the issue of forcing the state to let the black buy the meal is the determing issue of whether states can have their own laws. People did.

Both are *civil rights*. Protecting them is an infringement not on states' rights, but on one state non-right: the power to discriminate.

 

[PJABBER]

You can fight for your unpopular definition after you stop discriminating against gays in the meantime. Until you win that, it's wrong to have gays not have the same rights as non-gays.

It hurts to not be popular, yes it does.

I'm not discriminating against anyone. (Well, maybe misguided little lost liberals, but what fun would it be if we didn't have anyone to pick on or demonstrate our superiority to?)

I'd truly rather that we adopt the principles of classical liberalism.

And I am highly discouraged by all of this advocacy for more and more government involvement. Government and liberals need to stay out of our bedrooms and keep their hands off our wallets.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So, you're right on the issue, but think you see something with my argument. This should be interesting.

Look, don't get all butt-hurt. Your argument was a poor one because it did not directly address the objections laid by Patranus. It isn't essentially wrong, but poorly presented.

I was wrong. You said nothing about an issue with my argument, and IMO stated a somewhat weaker, less clear version of the same argument.

I would highly amused at your attempt to explain the ways in which my argument is unclear and weak.

It's correct when each of states it, but I find the analogy to mixed-race marriages you seem to have an unstated issue with near perfect.

I have no issue with the analogy to interracial marriage.

 

[Craig234]

Pjabber, you ARE discriminating against gays, if you don't support the CURRENT SYSTEM endingits discrimination now. Your opinion of how things should work is irrelevant to the current discrimination.

 

[glenn1]

That's a nice lie. So, now, protecting people's rights from having them stripped by bigots is undemocratic and authoritarian.

Stop censoring Glenn1! Oops there i go being authoritarian. Stop putting Glenn1 in jail for his religion! Oops, authoritarian again. Don't ban Glenn1 from eating in that restaruant freely! Sorry, authoritarian.

I don't think you understand my point. As I said, I support gay marriage. But like abortion, one can support a position while still opposing a judicially-imposed solution (e.g. Roe v. Wade). What you don't seem to understand is that the process matters a great deal on the durability and acceptance of the outcome. Because ultimately we're still a nation of laws, the people can vote to change the laws, up to and including the Constitution if needed (see California). It would be quite a pyhrric victory to win a court case, and have the people pass an Amendment in turn.

Alternatively, let's just say for sake of argument that that a Roe v. Wade decision on gay marriage is passed down and survives a challenge. Do you think that will be the end of the argument any more than it was the end of the arguments about abortion? Would it truly be a better day for gays if they could marry, but have to face a gauntlet of protesters at the chapel akin to the "Operation Rescue" throngs outside abortion clinics?

 

[Craig234]

Look, don't get all butt-hurt.

I'm not, and that wasn't a 'well presented argument'. If you have no point, ok. If you have a point, I'm trying to find ot what it is. I'd love to hear a a valid issue with the argument I posted, to learn a mistake.

Your argument was a poor one because it did not directly address the objections laid by Patranus. It isn't essentially wrong, but poorly presented.

Restating the conclusion doesn't do any more to state the issue. WHICH 'objections by Patranus' did it not address?

I certainly don't address every point - some are too idiotic to warrant a response. But I have no idea which of Patranus' points you think your argument adressed and mine didn't, much less your criticisms.

I would highly amused at your attempt to explain the ways in which my argument is unclear and weak.

I did not say and do not think it was weak and anclear. It was weaker and less clear. I could explain why, but doesn't it seem poiontless, we're really discussing your original criticisms.

I have no issue with the analogy to interracial marriage.

I was speculating as to what you were criticizing, because you have not said.

 

[PJABBER]

Pjabber, you ARE discriminating against gays, if you don't support the CURRENT SYSTEM endingits discrimination now. Your opinion of how things should work is irrelevant to the current discrimination.

You have a very narrow opinion of my belief system.

Ever the pragmatist, I also indulge in philosophic musings and utopian dreams. Only my dreams are more vivid than yours and fairer all around.

There are many paths to enlightenment and, strangely enough, many paths to social justice that do not demand a government be involved.

I fear you are enamored by granting others authority, while I am repulsed by it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

That is quite the coldly logical view of the issue, I suppose. Still, I can't help but think that you'd probably not feel the same way about heterosexual marriage.

The problem I have with the "it's a legal issue" argument is that laws have to have a basis in something. If you're arguing for laws preventing gay people from getting married, there must be a REASON. And so far I haven't heard a compelling reason that doesn't require homosexual love to be something less than heterosexual love. Marriage itself may be a legal institution, but it was based on an emotional one.

The idea that you can oppose gay marriage but have no problem with gay people and gay relationships is ridiculous. If gay relationships are just as good as straight ones, why can't gay people have the same institutional recognition?

Uh actually I do feel that way. "marriage" is "marriage". The state(as in gov't) recognizing it is a legal issue - not emotional. There may be emotion involved to those being married but the gov't doesn't care.

I think you've got things backwards. The law is pretty clear(or atleast was until some courts changed some meanings) so there isn't a "law" being pushed to prevent gay marriage. There is a push however to put things back in place after some judges/courts have changed things based on their personal opinion. This is a reaction to those who support gay marriage trying to change the laws. The point is basically that there wasn't a push to do anything until the push from the other side bypassed things and went to the courts to install their law. And so far there has not been any logical/compelling reason to change the law - it's all been based on emotion and some irrational/distorted view of equality.
Yep, institutional recognition was based on emotion. - I do not believe our gov't should be in this business.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Pjabber, you ARE discriminating against gays, if you don't support the CURRENT SYSTEM endingits discrimination now. Your opinion of how things should work is irrelevant to the current discrimination.

That's right, because libs/"progressives" get to decide where the good vs bad discrimination line is drawn...

 

[Craig234]

I don't think you understand my point. As I said, I support gay marriage. But like abortion, one can support a position while still opposing a judicially-imposed solution (e.g. Roe v. Wade). What you don't seem to understand is that the process matters a great deal on the durability and acceptance of the outcome. Because ultimately we're still a nation of laws, the people can vote to change the laws, up to and including the Constitution if needed (see California). It would be quite a pyhrric victory to win a court case, and have the people pass an Amendment in turn.

Alternatively, let's just say for sake of argument that that a Roe v. Wade decision on gay marriage is passed down and survives a challenge. Do you think that will be the end of the argument any more than it was the end of the arguments about abortion? Would it truly be a better day for gays if they could marry, but have to face a gauntlet of protesters at the chapel akin to the "Operation Rescue" throngs outside abortion clinics?

Based on your clarifiication, I see nothing new that I didn't understand.

I understand, as I thougth I indicated, that you are arguing 'policies passed because the people support them are politically stronger than policies forced on a hostile public by the court'.

I agreed that's true, and pointed out how it's not an option now, since that's not pubic opinion. And then I criticized a number of things about the attempt to use that to deny a court ruling on this now.

For one, you seem to be saying that the benefit of stronger publc acceptance is more important than the actual justice of the issue. I question whether you MEAN that, but you seemed to say it. I disagree.

I pointed out a very good example of the very same situation - a civil right protected for a minority that the public is very much against, forced on it by a court. Indeed, one with greater, more passionate opposition.

That example was school segregation and the Brown v. Board of Education ruling. It had every bad thing about it that a ruling for gay marriage would have.

And yes, I pointed out, the public has come to view it as one of the best rulings ever. You made the example of the unique Roe v. Wade decision - but who's to say which the reaction would resemble?

Indeed I'd argue that the gay marriage issue much more resembles Brown than Roe. It's a clear case of discrimination, there's no 'dead baby' involved, it's a simple right people can relate to.

There's not the legal controvery of 'invented law' the way there was with Roe's creation of 'trimester' rules - it's much more comparable to the broader application of a right like Brown (and without the bussing).

I mean, which is going to get the public more angry - forced to watch their own children taken further to a school they don't want them at on a bus, or that the two guys livining nearby are now living married?

I was suggesting that you were incorrect on the Roe analogy - on the law, on public acceptance. I gave a counterexample.

That leaves the 'but public opinion is shifting unlike Brown, so why don't we wait and get the benefit of the stronger change'?

I raise a couple disagreements with that. One is understanding the cause and effect. The unpopular legal rulings like Brown helped CAUSE public opinion to change.

Ever notice the first president to tell the nation equal rights was a national moral issue was AFTER Brown? Ever notice the civil rights movement was strengthened, the civil rights bill was passed AFTER Brown?

I'm expressing the opinion that you may not quite have the right opinion about public opinion. People tend to get used to the situation. You don't see alot of protestors against blacks; equal access - anymore.

Now that equal access is a 'cherished national principle'. Gay marriage may not reach that level given the likelihood of gay bigotry being longer than race bigotry, but it's still a valid point IMO.

A second issue is the notion that we should be subjugating the constitutional rights to getting that political advantage. What a nice precedent.

I'm not saying I'm totally against in theory planning for the political effect you mention. If you had a more compelling case I might agree. But IMO you don't. The issues comes down in favor of a court ruling.