Historic Same Sex Marriage Trial About to Start

[werepossum]

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.

This. (Although it is always amusing to see liberals yearning for more death threats. Oh, for the golden days of the killing fields, when everyone was equal and government went unquestioned . . .)

Pass a damn constitutional amendment so that the love that dare not speak its name will shut the hell up for awhile.

 

[shadow9d9]

Liberals are so excited about creating these so called "Historic" moments that they've turned politics into a game just to shake things up for the sake of "history", when what's really better for the country is business as usual. Soh-toh-my-OR was a prime example of this childish and limited thinking.

Historic this, historic that, blah blah blah.

Conservatives have fought against emancipation, unionizing, ending segregation, allow inter-racial marriage, and allowing women to vote.

Gay marriage is no less historic.

And again you and your ilk will look like fools in the history books.

 

[shadow9d9]

Fuck you.

No.

Your religion doesn't dictate society.

 

[woolfe9999]

The controlling case as far as I can tell is Baker v Nelson. In that case the SCOTUS said there was no Federal Issue. The 9th must follow that. I'm not sure how a District Court judge can even hear a State Case, if that is the case you speak to in the OP.
I think the Federal Marriage Law.. what ever it is called could get to the SCOTUS but not a State Constitution one regarding marriage.
I know there are heavy weights arguing the case so it will be heard but, I just don't see the Federal Issue if SCOTUS said it is not.
Ah... well... been too long for me since I knew stuff.. so I'll wait and see.

That aside, I strongly feel we are each 'blessed' with rights... among them is the right to get 'married'. Who we choose ought to be our choice, it seems to me. To deny that to anyone denies it to everyone...

I think Baker is more or less ripe for being overturned. There is a body of SCOTUS rulings on Constitutional questions related to sexual preference that has been handed down since Baker, and this body of rulings is implicitly inconsistent with Baker. The only reason Baker has never been overturned is because the other cases did not involve the specific question of gay marriage and hence the court could rule on them without addressing Baker. However, it seems pretty obvious that if the SCOTUS can rule on, for example, whether Colorado can amend its Constitution to forever legalize discrimination against gays, and can rule based on equal protection and due process, then the Court can also review Prop 8. The SCOTUS may very well uphold Prop 8, but the Baker holding that there was no substantial federal question to begin with was very odd even for its time (1972), and I think it's about to get chucked, if not in this specific case then sometime in the reasonably foreseeable future.

- wolf

 

[Kirby]

when individuals of the same gender engage in sex, it is sin.

unless you have two females, then it is win? :awe:

SIN = WIN

:awe:

 

[Craig234]

Conservatives have fought against emancipation, unionizing, ending segregation, allow inter-racial marriage, and allowing women to vote.

Gay marriage is no less historic.

And again you and your ilk will look like fools in the history books.

To be fair, while the right has opposed most social progress, most Republicans did vote for the civil rights bill, and emancipation wasn't that much a righ-left issue that I recall. There were a lot of racists.

It is true though that 'liberals' have led almost if not all social progress movements, whether the right went along or opposed them.

 

[Craig234]

This. (Although it is always amusing to see liberals yearning for more death threats. Oh, for the golden days of the killing fields, when everyone was equal and government went unquestioned . . .)

Pass a damn constitutional amendment so that the love that dare not speak its name will shut the hell up for awhile.

I don't hold up the rights of people for political benefit so much as you. You are happy to see gays remain without rights indefinitely if public opinion, not their constitutional rights, remains bigoted.

 

[Craig234]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't gay marriage a done deal? Would there be any reason at all the supreme court would strike down gay marriage?

Have you ever heard about people like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito?

 

[Fizzorin]

To be fair, while the right has opposed most social progress, most Republicans did vote for the civil rights bill, and emancipation wasn't that much a righ-left issue that I recall. There were a lot of racists.

It is true though that 'liberals' have led almost if not all social progress movements, whether the right went along or opposed them.

Agreed.

After all, Abraham Lincoln = Republican.

 

[shadow9d9]

Agreed.

After all, Abraham Lincoln = Republican.

Parties now are much different than parties then.

Conservatives are conservatives, regardless of party name, and Lincoln was not conservative.

 

[shadow9d9]

To be fair, while the right has opposed most social progress, most Republicans did vote for the civil rights bill, and emancipation wasn't that much a righ-left issue that I recall. There were a lot of racists.

It is true though that 'liberals' have led almost if not all social progress movements, whether the right went along or opposed them.

The people against all those things were conservative in nature. That is why I purposely used the term conservative instead of republican.

 

[shira]

He ignored your clear post.

Yet another variation: if he's allowed to marry any man, but not a woman, are his rights viloated?

Of course Patranus ignored it. That's the classic MO of intellectual cowards who KNOW they're wrong.

Search for a thread a few months ago on the health care bill where Patranus claimed that it was their own damn fault if someone got stuck with huge medical bills because their insurance company refused to pay. What was his argument? That people only had to read the policy to know ahead of time what would and wouldn't be covered. Then look at my response to him where I quizzed him on whether his own policy would cover treatment of several rather esoteric conditions. His response? There wasn't any. He KNOWS he's clueless on what his insurance company would or wouldn't cover, out of the infinity of possible medical conditions and treatments, but it's scary when you've made a ludicrous argument and are outrageously wrong. So he runs away and hides, like most cowards.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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. -- wow, just wow...you really honestly believe your diatribe?? How do yuo know what exactly is the cause of Christ?
CXan we have to groups of christains diometrically opposing an issue who both believe their way is the cause of Christ?? We are not looking to establish a State religion.

..

 

[Patranus]

Affirmative action means "unequal" but you don't see Liberals running to abolish that.

 

[Patranus]

Of course Patranus ignored it. That's the classic MO of intellectual cowards who KNOW they're wrong.

Search for a thread a few months ago on the health care bill where Patranus claimed that it was their own damn fault if someone got stuck with huge medical bills because their insurance company refused to pay. What was his argument? That people only had to read the policy to know ahead of time what would and wouldn't be covered. Then look at my response to him where I quizzed him on whether his own policy would cover treatment of several rather esoteric conditions. His response? There wasn't any. He KNOWS he's clueless on what his insurance company would or wouldn't cover, out of the infinity of possible medical conditions and treatments, but it's scary when you've made a ludicrous argument and are outrageously wrong. So he runs away and hides, like most cowards.

Huh, what did I ignore?
Sorry I can't spend all day following a thread.

 

[Craig234]

Affirmative action means "unequal" but you don't see Liberals running to abolish that.

Yes, not all unequal is bad. Depends on the reason.

Unequal based on race is likely bad. Some things unequal based on money are good (your car), others are bad (being subject ot the law).

Centuries of discrimination uniquely targetted at blacks was bad. It's left situations where blacks soffuer today as a result of that past discrimination.

Where those situations can be identified, sometimes justice is to undo the damage with an advantage.

Your simplistic argument that 'equal is always good' is like saying 'taking someone's money against their will' is always bad. So the thief stealing, and the state taking the stolen property back from the thief, are equal.

That's wrong. You don't give a crap about fairness, anout equality, about the history or justice, all you care about is you, and you are more than happy if you have advantage from past racism.

 

[Craig234]

Agreed.

After all, Abraham Lincoln = Republican.

And Lincoln wasn't the black and white, no pun intended, pro-black figure some like to think.

His longtine dream was to send all blacks out of the country back to Africa. When it was convenient, he said no man was more opposed to raising the black up to social equality than he was. Because ofthe confusion whether he was really caring about freeing the slaves, he wrote a letter to the editor and said he want to clear it up. He cared about the union. If he could keep the union with slavery, fine. Without slavery, fine.

He did have personal moral convictions about slavery, but it wasn't that simple as many like to think.

 

[manlymatt83]

Have you ever heard about people like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito?

Yes, but what possible arguments would they have against gay marriage? Too much precedent. Isn't this the exact same debate as interracial marriage?

 

[nageov3t]

Affirmative action means "unequal" but you don't see Liberals running to abolish that.

just like there are liberals who don't support gay marriage, there are also liberals who don't support AA.

I'd have no problem voting yes on a bill that would legalize gay marriage while simultaneously outlawing affirmative action.

 

[Craig234]

just like there are liberals who don't support gay marriage, there are also liberals who don't support AA.

I'd have no problem voting yes on a bill that would legalize gay marriage while simultaneously outlawing affirmative action.

I don't think you are a liberal, Loki.

I don't know of any actual liberal who opposes gay marriage. There are some who describe themselves as liberal who do, but all I've seen is bigotry with them. I think they are not liberal on it.

On affirmative action, it is possible. I think they're mistaken, but someone with liberal views could find an argument for opposing affirmative action.

Liberals are more inclined to be better informed and support justice by supporting AA, though.

 

[BoberFett]

And Lincoln wasn't the black and white, no pun intended, pro-black figure some like to think.

His longtine dream was to send all blacks out of the country back to Africa. When it was convenient, he said no man was more opposed to raising the black up to social equality than he was. Because ofthe confusion whether he was really caring about freeing the slaves, he wrote a letter to the editor and said he want to clear it up. He cared about the union. If he could keep the union with slavery, fine. Without slavery, fine.

He did have personal moral convictions about slavery, but it wasn't that simple as many like to think.

Color me impressed Craig. The piss poor version of what passes for history education in this country has most people fooled into believing Lincoln was a hero. It's always heartening to see others that know the truth.

 

[BoberFett]

I don't think you are a liberal, Loki.

I don't know of any actual liberal who opposes gay marriage. There are some who describe themselves as liberal who do, but all I've seen is bigotry with them. I think they are not liberal on it.

On affirmative action, it is possible. I think they're mistaken, but someone with liberal views could find an argument for opposing affirmative action.

Liberals are more inclined to be better informed and support justice by supporting AA, though.

Then you have to ruin it by going and posting something like this.

Who the fuck made you the king and gave you the power to say who is and who isn't liberal? As far as I'm concerned much of what you support isn't liberal either. Look the word up sometime.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't think you are a liberal, Loki.

I don't know of any actual liberal who opposes gay marriage. There are some who describe themselves as liberal who do, but all I've seen is bigotry with them. I think they are not liberal on it.

On affirmative action, it is possible. I think they're mistaken, but someone with liberal views could find an argument for opposing affirmative action.

Liberals are more inclined to be better informed and support justice by supporting AA, though.

While I'm in favor of legalizing gay marriage, I have a somewhat different view of affirmative action. I believe affirmative action is a good idea, but only temporarily. I can see introducing some inequality into the system for some period of time to provide opportunity for a generation of minorities, who would then, in theory, raise their kids better and be role models for the next generation. However, after a generation I think AA needs to end, and we're right about there. AA in the longrun actually increases racial resentment. AA in perpetuity? No way.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

just like there are liberals who don't support gay marriage, there are also liberals who don't support AA.

I'd have no problem voting yes on a bill that would legalize gay marriage while simultaneously outlawing affirmative action.

That would be a freakin' awesome bill, if only for the number of heads it caused to simultaneously explode. The finger-pointing and recriminations among the survivors would also be classic.

As far as Lincoln goes, I try always to judge politicians by what they do, not what they say. Politicians' statements are often contradictory to each other and to what they actually do. Just as Satan's biggest accomplishment is said to be convincing people he does not exist, so is the politician's biggest accomplishment convincing people to judge him on what he says rather than what he has done.

 

[nageov3t]

I don't think you are a liberal, Loki.

I don't know of any actual liberal who opposes gay marriage. There are some who describe themselves as liberal who do, but all I've seen is bigotry with them. I think they are not liberal on it.

On affirmative action, it is possible. I think they're mistaken, but someone with liberal views could find an argument for opposing affirmative action.

Liberals are more inclined to be better informed and support justice by supporting AA, though.

when gay marriage can't make headway in liberal strongholds like California, New Jersey, or New York, it seems pretty obvious to me that there are plenty of liberals who aren't on the gay marriage train. I know some of them myself.