Homophobic bigots want judge ruling thrown out because he is gay.

[Craig234]

A commentary for this situation.

Marriage is nothing more than a wink and a nod from the government allowing a union that already exists to be formally recognized. As if you're given permission to what is already yours.

I'm on the fence on this issue, cause like you, I believe in men and women being together. The issue comes with all the noise the Dems make on this matter. It might just make sense to say 'fine, have it' and shut them all up.

Even if you support the same policy as me - ending discrimination - I can see having a higher regard for Classy if he THINKS he's being principled, than your amorality.

 

[Jaskalas]

Even if you support the same policy as me - ending discrimination - I can see having a higher regard for Classy if he THINKS he's being principled, than your amorality.

So you take a social matter on which I do not have an interest and seem hurt when I am neither your friend nor foe. Touching I think, that you'd rather see me as the bogyman. That'd you'd rather have found bigotry than accept an olive branch shoved in your mouth. I much prefer you with the olives, for the noise is reduced and we can focus on things that matter.

My principles are fiscal with limited gov. My solution, to which no one seems interested, is to abolish government's role in marriage altogether. Its historical precedence is as a church service, you know, those folks are who are offended by gays anyway.

 

[werepossum]

Although I am about as stridently pro gay marriage as an old hetero Republican can be, I do not believe that anyone opposed to gay marriage is bigoted, or secretly gay, or otherwise a bad person. I can respect your opinion. I ask only that regardless of your personal opinion on gay marriage, you do not support government intentionally discriminating against any person, even if the freedom they seek is not something you necessarily support, as long as no one else is materially damaged. Government that has the power to decide whom you may and may not marry is far too powerful and intrusive.

 

[Craig234]

So you take a social matter on which I do not have an interest and seem hurt when I am neither your friend nor foe. Touching I think, that you'd rather see me as the bogyman. That'd you'd rather have found bigotry than accept an olive branch shoved in your mouth. I much prefer you with the olives, for the noise is reduced and we can focus on things that matter.

My principles are fiscal with limited gov. My solution, to which no one seems interested, is to abolish government's role in marriage altogether. Its historical precedence is as a church service, you know, those folks are who are offended by gays anyway.

There's nothing about 'hurt', and nothing about bigotry in your position.

I called it amoral - 'ya, ya, principles, whatever, I'm tired of it, do what you want'.

The rights of people - gays in this case - matter, contrary to your assertion.

And no one interested in your 'limit government's role in marriage' view? That has probably been posted hundreds of times by people.

I'm quite tired of that - I say time and again, don't discriminate while implementing it.

I prefer you going along with non-discrimination to supporting discrimination - but am pointing out that the reason isn't right, when it's 'just not wanting to deal with it'.

 

[MikeMike]

Craig234...

Are you gay?

 

[Craig234]

Craig234...

Are you gay?

After years of being reasonably impressed by the fact of people who are for discrimination, as much as I might criticize their views, discussing the issue rather than trying to ask 'are you gay' as if the only people who can stand up for the rights of people are people who stand to benefit by being in that group, finally, someone is low enough to try that.

After a long period of good behavior, I think I finally decided the point had been made, and answered that topic in comments more than once. Why do you ask?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Just announced that the original ruling is being upheld. This should be fun from here.

 

[D1gger]

Glad to hear this. I don't think he was in a position of conflict of interest anymore than a black judge who would rule on a civil rights case.

 

[Kadarin]

Sounds like the right call. Otherwise we'd be in the weird position of allowing only gay judges to rule on issues that affect straight people.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

lol

I don't get it. What's up with the picture?

 

[Sbeacher]

Gay or no gay judge...the gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. You could have a raccoon come in there, that made it as judge, and he would garner it as unconstitutional. Gay people are law abiding citizens who pay taxes. They are highly functional, and very talented even loving people. Hello, have we forgotten "church and state". It's all in the first amendment. Look if everybody can have their guns. We can still have our gay people get married. Besides if you know any gay people, they marry in opposite sex genders. You'll know who the wife is. So, these state constitutional whatevers that they put out there, are unconstitutional, and should be repealed. It's called bigotry....Big Sin. Not good. If Jesus lived today, he would marry them. Why? Because I know some gay couples that are religious, and live their lives better then heteros. It's inspiring.

 

[Thump553]

Although I am about as stridently pro gay marriage as an old hetero Republican can be, I do not believe that anyone opposed to gay marriage is bigoted, or secretly gay, or otherwise a bad person. I can respect your opinion. I ask only that regardless of your personal opinion on gay marriage, you do not support government intentionally discriminating against any person, even if the freedom they seek is not something you necessarily support, as long as no one else is materially damaged. Government that has the power to decide whom you may and may not marry is far too powerful and intrusive.

Damn that was well put. If only one of the midgets running for the GOP slot had even remotely close to the same principles there would be hope for the party.

 

[her209]

Craig234...

Are you gay?

LOL... why? You interested?

 

[Jaskalas]

Government that has the power to decide whom you may and may not marry is far too powerful and intrusive.

Damn, and I missed this awesome quote before. I suppose the question remaining, is if there's room for ambivalence on the matter. Or does principle demand action in favor of 'gay marriage'?

Perhaps my notion is that government shouldn't recognize marriage in the first place. There's no discrimination when there's nothing there. This is in effect, merely arguing different means to the same end.

 

[BoomerD]

While I think the judge should have recused himself from this case because of the possibility of a conflict of interest, (apparent or real, doesn't matter, only the perception of the conflict matters) in the end, the right decision was made.
I'm definitely not "gay friendly." I don't like the "gay lifestyle," I am "turned off" by the "flaming queers" who flaunt their "gayness" in everyone's face, and I'm still not decided on the whole " I'm a man/woman born in a woman's/man's body."

However, we do have a couple of gay/lesbian friends, and I certainly don't see any challenge to MY marriage if any of them get legally married. Hell, why should us heterosexuals be the only ones who suffer?
It's not like most "straight" people have done such a wonderful job "upholding the sanctity of marriage" over the years. With the divorce rate hovering around 50% for many years, it seems like marriage is as much a "throw-away" item as the other "goods" in our lives.
Too many people just don't get that marriage is work. ANY relationship that's worth keeping requires work. My wife & I have been married 36 years next week. It's definitely a "working relationship."

We know one gay couple who has been together for close to 20 years. THEY are the reason I support the right for gays to get married. THEY have shown the life-long commitment that marriage requires.

I do not think that refusing to support gay marriage makes a person a "homophobe" in any way, but rather, many people were just raised that marriage is defined as a legal/spiritual union between a man and a woman. I don't think that makes them bad people, and MOST support the concept of a legal union, one recognized by governments as a legal bond, one that grants the partners the same rights as marriage.
(I actually don't get why there's so damned much fighting and discord over the word "marriage," but since it doesn't affect me in any way, I try to stay out of it.)

 

[JEDIYoda]

Quote:





Originally Posted by MikeMike


Craig234...

Are you gay?




LOL... why? You interested?

MikeMike probably wants a forum encounter........of course he could be an undercover cop...

 

[actuarial]

I do not think that refusing to support gay marriage makes a person a "homophobe" in any way, but rather, many people were just raised that marriage is defined as a legal/spiritual union between a man and a woman.

Being raised a certain way does not excuse bad behavior. There's people in the world who were raised that a woman should not expose any skin in public. I'm not trying to draw a parallel, because they are world's different in terms of the severity of the action, but the mechanism for looking the other way is the same.

There's always a line to be drawn, and in my opinion being against gay marriage and the above are both on the other side of that line. Obviously though being against gay marriage is a lot closer to acceptable.

I don't think that makes them bad people, and MOST support the concept of a legal union, one recognized by governments as a legal bond, one that grants the partners the same rights as marriage.
(I actually don't get why there's so damned much fighting and discord over the word "marriage," but since it doesn't affect me in any way, I try to stay out of it.)

Because "separate but equal" is never equal.

 

[piasabird]

This is all about greed and money. Gay people want all of the benefits and the rights of being married without the responsibility. At this point, I dont care much. Nothing you can say can make me accept the Gay Lifestyle. This is my choice and I am free to choose.

 

[sactoking]

Because "separate but equal" is never equal.

Just to pick a nit, "separate but equal" can quite often be truly equal. Often in US history "separate but equal" was used to refer to things that were separate and unequal. For example, "separate but equal" schools for blacks and whites were often not close at all to being equal. Yes, there was equity in that both were schools, but there was not true equity in the service provided.

However, take some Crow-era 'blacks only' water fountains. If they used the same municipal water supply and there was equal access to them, they were truly separate but equal.

The same could be true for gay marriage. Many states have civil union laws which afford most of the same benefits as marriage. This is not equal, though, as most civil unions don't get all the benefits of marriage. But, if civil unions were given identical benefits and access as marriage they would be "separate but equal".

I have heard the argument that civil unions, even if identical to marriage in all operations save name, are not equal to marriage because of the name difference. That's bullshit. At that point there is no oppression and no material difference, just an inferiority complex that "Your chocolate ice cream is better than my chocolate cream". Fine, rename civil unions 'super-marriage' then.

I am pro-gay marriage. Earlier in this thread I voiced an opinion supporting the "homophobic bigots" not because I agreed with their underlying position but because I felt that their legal argument had some validity. After a thoughtful conversation I changed my position on the legal argument.

But I just felt the need to say that the time-worn cliche of "separate but equal is never equal" is wrong. "Separate but equal" can be equal but people don't think so because it has been applied to so many things that were never equal to begin with.

 

[her209]

MikeMike probably wants a forum encounter........of course he could be an undercover cop...

Or a Republican.

 

[actuarial]

Just to pick a nit, "separate but equal" can quite often be truly equal. Often in US history "separate but equal" was used to refer to things that were separate and unequal. For example, "separate but equal" schools for blacks and whites were often not close at all to being equal. Yes, there was equity in that both were schools, but there was not true equity in the service provided.

However, take some Crow-era 'blacks only' water fountains. If they used the same municipal water supply and there was equal access to them, they were truly separate but equal.

The same could be true for gay marriage. Many states have civil union laws which afford most of the same benefits as marriage. This is not equal, though, as most civil unions don't get all the benefits of marriage. But, if civil unions were given identical benefits and access as marriage they would be "separate but equal".

I have heard the argument that civil unions, even if identical to marriage in all operations save name, are not equal to marriage because of the name difference. That's bullshit. At that point there is no oppression and no material difference, just an inferiority complex that "Your chocolate ice cream is better than my chocolate cream". Fine, rename civil unions 'super-marriage' then.

I am pro-gay marriage. Earlier in this thread I voiced an opinion supporting the "homophobic bigots" not because I agreed with their underlying position but because I felt that their legal argument had some validity. After a thoughtful conversation I changed my position on the legal argument.

But I just felt the need to say that the time-worn cliche of "separate but equal is never equal" is wrong. "Separate but equal" can be equal but people don't think so because it has been applied to so many things that were never equal to begin with.

While I understand your viewpoint, I still disagree. Take for example your water fountain example, in which you say that it is truly separate but equal. If there was a law being passed that blacks and whites could no longer share water fountains, and where any water fountain was there would be a 'blacks only' and 'whites only' fountain, would you still come in to say "that's bullshit" to people who were saying it was wrong? Would you be okay with this type of law?

If things were TRULY equal there wouldn't be any differences. Having civil unions is certainly better than the current situation, but it's still a concession to bigotry.

 

[zsdersw]

This is all about greed and money. Gay people want all of the benefits and the rights of being married without the responsibility. At this point, I dont care much. Nothing you can say can make me accept the Gay Lifestyle. This is my choice and I am free to choose.

Straight people want all of the benefits and rights of being married without the responsibility. Look at the divorce rate.

Straight people turned marriage into the joke it too often is, so they don't have any room at all to be pointing fingers at anyone other than themselves.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Actually, I think they may have a point. He may have made the right decision but as a judge he needs to be impartial when he makes that decision. Impartiality of the legal system is a huge deal. The ruling needs to be made by someone doing it because its the right ruling to make, and not because it affects them personally.

I'm mildly surprised that he didn't abstain from taking the case. He must have known if this came out it could cause the case to be sent back to the courts, drawing out the process.

So should a Christian judge recuse himself as well?

 

[Howard]

This is all about greed and money. Gay people want all of the benefits and the rights of being married without the responsibility. At this point, I dont care much. Nothing you can say can make me accept the Gay Lifestyle. This is my choice and I am free to choose.

Hah, marriage is a joke anyway.

 

[spittledip]

After years of being reasonably impressed by the fact of people who are for discrimination, as much as I might criticize their views, discussing the issue rather than trying to ask 'are you gay' as if the only people who can stand up for the rights of people are people who stand to benefit by being in that group, finally, someone is low enough to try that.

Low enough to try that? Whatever do you mean?