AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > July > 11 > Entry
Did the California Supreme Court act properly in overturning the gay marriage bill?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Did you hear the news? Out there on the Left Coast, a bunch of activist judges decided to legislate from the bench, ignoring the will of the people by granting homosexuals the right to marry.
That’s the Golden State for you, familiar with looking strange to the rest of the country. In 1948, California was the first state to strike down a statute prohibiting intermarriage involving white people (Perez vs. Sharpe). The court disagreed with those who claimed the law was necessary to keep “the Caucasian race from being contaminated by races whose members are by nature physically and mentally inferior to Caucasians.” I don’t see anyone lining up to dispute the California court’s wisdom here — are you aware it took 19 years for federal law to follow suit?
So maybe California’s recent trail-blazing deserves closer scrutiny. “Activist judges legislating from the bench?” Nothing more than a phrase employed when the right doesn’t like the result of a legal decision; Scalia and Thomas overturn acts of Congress and they’re just “doing their job.” Furthermore, three of the four in the majority opinion were appointed by Republicans, and this same court nullified thousands of marriages performed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome in 2004.
“Ignoring the will of the people?” When California’s Proposition 22 passed back in 2000, a majority voted for a change in family law code specifying that marriage is between a man and a woman. Yet California voters increasingly show a change of heart. By 2005, the 60 percent in favor of the proposition eroded to half, and most polls now show a majority disapprove of such clarifying language.
Those who view homosexuality as a choice, a mortal sin, an inferior lifestyle that contaminates our society—well, no amount of argument will sway you towards acceptance. Yet for others, California Supreme Court decision S147999 might make for some interesting summer reading. Within its pages, the neither activist nor impulsive California court determines that existing rights accorded gay couples aren’t enough, that only through marriage can they enjoy equal respect and protection under the state constitution. If that feels like overkill to you, if it feels “too soon,” I only ask this: is second-class status good enough for your relationship?
Rebuttal
Andy’s last paragraph proves the point of those who charge the California Supreme Court with one of the most egregious, arrogant and far-reaching judicial actions to date. It is not up to a court to determine that “existing rights accorded to gay couples aren’t enough.” It is not in a judge’s job description to ensure gay couples “equal respect and protection.” Chief executives and legislators can fight for their beliefs and to change society. But under America’s separation of powers doctrine, the whole point of a judicial branch is for judges to put aside personal opinions and determine whether laws are constitutional. Period.
Of course Supreme Court Justice Scalia overturns acts of Congress: If the law is unconstitutional, that’s his job. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter how much he personally disagrees with it. If it was passed by our elected representatives and doesn’t conflict with the Constitution, he must affirm it.
I believe the most commendable judge on the California Supreme Court is Justice Corrigan. One of the minority who disagreed with the court’s action, her legal opinion stated, “In my view, Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage…[However] a majority of Californians hold a different view, and have explicitly said so by their vote.” She points out that, “This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not.”
According to the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg, another serious action by the California court has been overlooked. It was the first court ever to use the “strict scrutiny” standard for sexual orientation — essentially creating a legal tsunami by giving sexual orientation the same strict protection as race, religion or gender. Institutions that agree with the majority of Californians and morally disagree with gay marriage can now be legally punished. For example, Christian, Jewish or Muslim properties refusing to allow gays to be married there could lose their nonprofit status.
Commendably, gay marriage supporters usually argue “live and let live” and don’t want legalization of their unions to hurt anyone else. Unfortunately, by acting in such a judicially indefensible way, the California Supreme Court has almost ensured the opposite.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Spacedoggie
July 11, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
Go Shaunti Feldhahn! I couldn’t have said it better.
By Stephen
July 11, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
“the whole point of a judicial branch is for judges to put aside personal opinions and determine whether laws are constitutional. Period.”
And that’s exactly what they did —- nothing more, nothing less. They determined the application of the law was unconstitutional, and that;s it. Period. So what;s the problem?
By Copyleft
July 11, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this
Ironically, Shaunti has touched on one important truth, doubtless by accident: The function of the Courts is to determine the constitutionality of laws, nothing more.
Of course, she fails to realize what that means: that the “will of the people” is completely IRRELEVANT to carrying out that duty. A justice citing “what the majority of Californians want” is failing in his/her duty.
Any time you hear an argument that judges have “no right to override the will of the people,” you know you’re dealing with someone profoundly ignorant of our Constitution. Of COURSE they have such a right; in fact, it’s their duty to override the popular will whenever it conflicts with Constitutional freedoms.
By USinUK
July 11, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this
Commendably, gay marriage supporters usually argue “live and let live” and don’t want legalization of their unions to hurt anyone else.
what a shame that the religious right can’t do the same.
By Mara
July 11, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this
If I recall correctly, the California legislature have passed two gay marriage bills and both were vetoed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger.
Also, I believe that the California Constitution includes the “full rights and respect” clause as well as acceptance of sexual orientation as a “protected class” subject to anti-discrimination protection. What we end up with is a Constitution that provides for equal rights and equal treatement for all people, including gays, being pitted against referendum-based laws explicitely stating that when it comes to civil marriage, gays are NOT entitled to the same rights and equal treatment as heterosexuals.
If Shaunti believes that the California Supreme Court should interpret/decide questions of Constitutionality…well, that’s what they did. And it’s only because she doesn’t like the outcome that it’s labled “activist”.
By Truth
July 11, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this
This is a poll that talks about how the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, but the majority also supports equal rights for gay couples.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/13/opinion/polls/main4180335.shtml
This is a similar poll from the Boston Globe that says the same thing. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/02/22/majorityinmasspollopposegaymarriage/
These polls seem to be very representative of most of the polls I saw, when I searched this topic this morning.
So, if the idea of compromise was ever considered, most people would favor gays having the same rights as married couples. But of course the idea of compromise to most activists means defeat.
Even in the two states that have toyed with this, the vast majorities are opposed to using the actual word “marriage”, while they completely support equal rights. So it appears to be just a matter of the word, not the issue.
But again, compromise means defeat, so gays in the vast majority of the states will really suffer from the insistence of a few radicals and a few judges that have taken on the cause by making their own laws.
Couples that have been together for 40 years will not be able to have family rights once they start dying off. How many older gay couples will never see equal rights because of this insistence that compromise is defeat? Especially when the compromise only concerns the use of a specific word.
If the gay marriage movement was replaced with an equal rights movement, this could be resolved in a couple of election cycles. But as we all know, it is much more important that the screamers get their way while the rest of the gay world is legally discriminated against.
Maybe in our lifetimes, the majority of the population will support guy marriage, but there doesn’t seem to be any more support now than there was in 2004, (See CBS Poll above). That’s probably because of the fact that most Americans just don’t like issues crammed down their throats.
That works great for the screamers. They will have a battle where they can scream and yell and call themselves victims for years. Isn’t that great.
But the question that I dare ask is: What is more important: the word, or the rights?
By mishi
July 11, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
I suppose it’s germane to note that Californians now, contra Corrigan, back same-sex marriage by a substantial margin - according to a post-ruling poll, by 51 to 42 percent. So now the egregiously misnamed Family Research Council will bow to the will of the majority, stop trying to impose its version of Christianity on the state, and end its jihad against gays?
Hmm, somehow I doubt it.
By RF
July 11, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this
I’m sure there will be another resolution put before voters in coming years in California. It will be interesting to see how the “will of the people” has changed. I suspect that if it were put to a vote right now, many states would see such a resolution defeated as I believe it would be in California. I find it very interesting that three of the majority justices were republican appointees. Could it be that interpreting the accuracy of law can actually get beyond party lines? That scares the conservatives, I’m sure!
IMO if two people, regardless of any descriptive factor, can live together and have a committed, successful relationship, then they should be allowed the legal rights and protections afforded a “married” couple. The relationship shouldn’t be limited by definition to only heterosexual couples. Considering the divorce rate right now, heterosexual couples don’t seem to be very successful at marriage anyway. It’s almost laughable to think that we would argue that they are the only ones who can be “married”.
By Truth
July 11, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this
RF
I agree with everything you said except the blind swing at conservatives. But if you had not taken that blind swing, yours and mine would be the only two posts from today that didn’t.
The civil rights movement became law after the majority of Americans approved. The same will happen with rights for gay couples, but you are dealing with a very hot political issue by using the actual name “marriage.” This just seems like a big “Duh” to me. Change the name of gay marriage. The word “gay” had nothing to do with homosexuality untill the gay movement adopted it. They did this to allow folks to have a more positive term for gay people. Are those gay leaders all dead, now?
Didn’t California already have civil Unions, something the rest of the country needs? Do you really think that the California ruling has helped the cause?
By Gale
July 11, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
The CA courts did the right thing to uphold constitutional equal rights. I think we would find it in most, if not all state constitutions and it is certainly in the federal constitution. The word, is not important. However, no matter what it is called, if the rights of the civil union are identical, and recoognized nationally and internationally, then gay couples and their associates, will probably use that word. For myself, I tend to use partner when refering to my partner of 16 years.
I would very much like the 1100+ rights and responsibilities automatically associated with a marriage contract. Presently, some of these may be gained with state-specific, usually separate legal contracts. If the couple moves to a new state, the contracts must be rewritten. This is NOT equal. And, of course, no federal rights come along with these.
By Carl
July 11, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
Truth, you are right — there can be no compromise on equality. And the rest of your commentary strikes to the very heart of what the California Supreme Court spoke to in their majority opinion: by calling a gay union something other than “marriage” you are immediately according it less respect than a straight union. As the Justices pointed out in their opinion, when Texas tried to open a separate law school for African Americans instead of allowing them access to the UT law school, it was denied by the courts because the new school would have lacked the history, the prestige, the connections, the stature of the UT law school; so even though it would have been a separate institution for African Americans — it would hardly have been equal. If you were given that same choice, which would you choose? You would choose the superior institution. And if, as you and the polls you cite, so many heterosexuals are alright with us gays having all the same rights accorded to married heterosexuals — what difference does the word “marriage” make to them? Those people know that by calling it something different, they can intellectually rationalize the identical (or equivalent) institution as being something less than equal to theirs — another fact pointed out by the majority opinion.
All we want is to be included in the institution of marriage and all the trappings and recognition (and pitfalls) that go along with it. We are asking to be married, not “gay married” any more than the Lovings wanted to be “interracially married” (another fact pointed out by the Justices). So please, lets be accurate and stop referring to this as “gay” marriage and refer to it properly as marriage equality.
Finally, I have yet to understand or have anyone explain logically and rationally how my marrying the man of my dreams and us buying a home in the burbs with a white picket fence and having 2.3 children and a pet could in anyway whatsoever effect their marriage.
By Truth
July 11, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this
Gale
If the word is so unimportant, then why the big fuss? I believe that California had already granted those 1100+ rights with Civil Unions. (correct me if I am wrong)
The word may not mean much to you, but according to every poll I could find, it means a tremendous amount to most people. The movement is going to have to be accepted by the majority of the population, and that word seems to be standing in the way.
It wouldn’t fix it. But it would make the issue a matter of equal rights, and that issue, you could win. But trying to force people to believe that gay people should be able to marry people of their own sex, when no one has ever had that ability isn’t working very well. You can rationalize that stance to be ridicules, you can diminish the importance of the term, but I’m not the person deciding this. When I get to be king, come and see me. We will work it out, but until then, the way it is going you will probably not ever see those 1100+ rights.
This is just the Republican in me. I want to solve the problem, not adopt a cause. What do you want to do, and how is that working so far?
By Copyleft
July 11, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
Truth, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the solution you’re suggesting. “Separate but equal” turns out not to work.
Until TRUE equal treatment from the government, in every respect, is attained, the struggle continues.
By NYer
July 11, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this
Two questions for the group:
1) How does this ruling impact people who live in other states? My recollection of the Massachusetts ruling is that it only affected people residing in Massachusetts. I believe the California ruling has no residency requirements. What happens if a gay couple resides in Georgia travels to California for the ceremony and then returns to Georgia and seeks to enforce the wedding contract? Or worse, they decide to get divorced? Or one of them dies? Has the California Supreme Court just essentially created a legal conundrum that other states will have to deal with?
2) Has anyone looked at the historical context of the word marriage? I remember reading somewhere, although the source unfortunately escapes me, that the word marriage has very religious undertones to it and that in the history of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, marriage specifically means man and woman. If anyone has or can find any research on this I would be curious to see it.
If that is correct, it would appear to me that the California Supreme Court may be treading on religion in this ruling, which would be problematic.
I take no issue with providing equal rights, and am certainly mindful of Carl’s point about separate but equal, but if the word choice matters because of its religious definition, as an issue of separation, we need to come up with a different definition.
By USinUK
July 11, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
Truth, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the solution you’re suggesting. “Separate but equal” turns out not to work.
which is why I think the solution is for ALL licenses granted by the state should be “civil union” licenses. if folks want to go to the church/ashram/synagogue/meeting house of their choice and be blessed because the religious aspect of the union is important to them, then they can do that and call that ceremony whatever they want.
By Truth
July 11, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
Carl
Very, very good post. Everything you said was right, but the 70% of Americans that oppose gay marriage (Pardon the term, but it is what it is) didn’t read it, nor would they be interested in reading it. And that is because of the fact that the PR aspect of this is about as bad as anything I have ever seen.
Two men in tuxedos, kissing in front of a preacher may mean happiness to you and to be honest, it doesn’t bother me, but we aren’t in charge. If I were the PR guy, working for equal rights for gay couples, I would never let another picture like that out. Like it or not, it p** people off. It is in their face and they will vote your cause down, because they don’t see two happy dudes, they see what they want to see. You cannot change that by eloquent postings on a political blog and people screaming at cameras sure as hell isn’t going to change it.
The question I am asking is simple: What do you want? Do you want all the rights associated with marriage while your wedding day is still in a church, still the same people, the house, the picket fence, the kids, but instead of a piece of paper that says marriage, it says civil Union.
Or do you want what you have now? This issue has been around for twenty years. How is demanding marriage working out so far?
You win. What I am writing here means nothing. The “movement” will continue to struggle and 20 years from now, chances are, you will be much older and still fighting to be married. Everyone thought that the California ruling would open doors, but it has actually closed many doors. Not even Massachusetts is going to try it again.
People will support equal rights that would never support two men getting married. From a PR perspective, you are using the atomic bomb to promote nuclear energy. It is a disaster. And the results hurt you every day.
By TiggerFL
July 11, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this
Give me a break. Shaunti if you lived in California you would fall off the edge, your opinion is so slanted it is pathetic. First, you use the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg for a quote. Why not just use a quote from the Pope. Of course the FRC is going to say something like that, they are a bunch of hypocritical, discriminating, right wing lunatics. Fear, Fear, Fear, that is all they preach and a part of that fear is to attack the gay community and grossly distort the bible, the laws and US Constitution. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that our country should revel one group of people while discriminating against another group. The “Christian” community does not hold the sole right to rule. This crap that they preach about “Family Values” and how legalizing gay marriage will lead to “decaying families”, “inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions”, “the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed”, and etc according to Dr. James Dobson of the American Family Association.
And of course your statement that “Institutions that agree with the majority of Californians and morally disagree with gay marriage can now be legally punished. For example, Christian, Jewish or Muslim properties refusing to allow gays to be married there could lose their nonprofit status.” This is so typical. The Christian community are continuously “using” gay marriage as an excuse to look victimized. I bet if there was a law passed that specifically gave the “Christian community” the same rights as the rest of all Americans, they would be the first to claim discrimination if a group did not believe in Christianity and did not want to honor this newly granted right. But since it is against their “moral belief” they are trying to play the victim and say that they can “now be legally punished”. If you take a look at our society the gay community is THE ONLY group of people in today’s society that continuously persecuted, discriminated against and denied equal rights afforded EVERY citizen of the United States because one group does not like them.
If you and everyone else who believe the hate, discrimination and hypocritical rhetoric that spews from the mouths of the “Christian Community”, then you might as well go ahead and pass Constitutional Amendments taking away EVERY non-Christian’s rights.In fact, let’s throw out our Constitution and just instate the bible as our ruling doctrine. Forget that there are millions of people in this country and through out the world who are not of the Christian faith and do not believe in its teachings. So what gives the “Christian Community” the right to persecute a group of people because they don’t stand up to their moral belief?
You know, you should really look into the mirror and realize that you are not better or worse than every other man, woman and child walking this earth. You WERE NOT given the right to judge the morality of all people and cram your “moral beliefs” down everyones throat. Every citizen of the United States should have the rights as every other as was originally written in the Constitution of the United States. Get off of your Morality High Horse and take a close look at what you and those who subscribe to the same discriminating beliefs have done to this country. If anything, you all are the ones undermining our communities, ripping apart our society and the downfall and decay of families. Morality is not about what you believe, it is about how you act and treat our fellow man, woman and child.
By USinUK
July 11, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
Nyer -
How does this ruling impact people who live in other states?
good question … I happened to see an article in Salon that linked to a CNN story on that very issue:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/07/09/dnt.wi.same.sex.jail.wkow
If you’re a gay couple traveling to California to wed, chances are your state won’t recognize your marriage (unless, of course, you live in New York). But the lucky folks in Wisconsin may actually face a fate worse than legal invisibility. It turns out there’s an old law on the books prohibiting couples from leaving the state to marry and then returning with a union that isn’t valid in Wisconsin. Apparently, this is a form of fraud and can lead to nine months of jail time and a fine of up to $10,000.
now, of course, the question is are bigots in other states going to mimic the law to further marginalize gays???
By Truth
July 11, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
How does the use of a specific word rate over the rights of 30,000,000 people?
You are right. The struggle will continue because apparently the struggle is what is important, not the actual civil rights. This isn’t like separate but equal schools. It’s one word.
As I said in another post, what I say means nothing. The struggle will continue. Radicals will continue to scream at TV cameras and people will dig in and stand their ground.
Get the civil unions issue done. Get it in all the states. Give people the rights that they deserve and then go for the window dressing of the use of a specific word. But give the American Citizens their rights as soon as we can. But by demanding semantics, it is not doing much of anything.
That is my solution. How is your solution working out so far?
By Gale
July 11, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
I hate it when the forum doesn’t see my email right and trashes a ten minute response!
Carl, you are right. The word is important. There are many legal presidents based on the marriage contract that would probably have to be re-argued in court if the contract is “civil union”.
Truth, I take it back. The word is important. And CA cannot grant all thoose rights because some of them are federal. Its that problem of still being married when a CA couple moves to a different state. Are they still married? A straight couple would still be married. What is the difference.
By Truth
July 11, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
USinUK
Damn, I can’t believe I am saying this, but that is really not a bad idea.
By Steve Kaup
July 11, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this
Dear Reader, Shaunti Feldhahn should take greater care to avoid adding to the “fear mongering” that religious activists want to foster in order to give force to their views. A perfect example of these attempts is her comments concerning the “legal tsunami” over sexual orientation being given the “same [legal] protection as race, religion, or gender.” It may indeed be a fearful idea to many Christians, that they could be legally forced to do something against there religious views, such as marrying a gay couple, but that is not what is happening and it is certainly not likely to happen any time soon. The government would not force a Christian Minister to marry a gay couple any more than the government would force a Jewish Rabbi to perform a cross-religious wedding. In each religious culture, there are many different rules and guidelines that are followed based upon the religious belief of that group. It is ludicrous to imply, as Shaunti has blatantly done, that our government is now going to exercise control over those guidelines simply because of the California Supreme Court’s decision to recognize same-sex marriage. It appears that those apposed to the decision are trying to insight panic by saying that the California Supreme Court’s decision has taken something away from every individual’s religious right. In reality, it has only given greater equality to the rights of same-sex individuals. The truth is that those who oppose same-sex marriage are experiencing fear, but it is not the fear of governmental control. It is the fear that they may be forced to view someone as an equal whom they previously viewed as less then themselves. This change in perspective is causing them to subconsciously feel like they are now inferior. It is time that these fear-mongers recognize the truth about their fear and quit trying to manufacture false reasons for it. In addition, maybe they should examine whether or not they truly believe that all mankind has been created equal and therefore should receive equal treatment. In any case, equality under the law is every citizen’s right, and those citizens who already posses the right to marry should not feel threatened if other citizens of a different race, religion, gender, sexual preference, or anything that makes them different are granted those same rights. Thanks, Steve Kaup
By GOB
July 11, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
As USinUK says, the only way to truly have equal protection under the law for everyone, as far as “marriages” go is to do away with them at the governmental level. That way anyone can get a license for a civil union and gain the tax advantages, as well as the medical decisions, etc., and those who believe that “marriage” is between a man and woman can then go to their church and get married.
Nothing changes for them except the title of the paper that they get at the courthouse. For gays, however, it makes a world of difference. I dont see another way to make it work, but I doubt that the religious groups would ever go for it, which means no politician is going to have the balls to vote for it, if one did decide to even write up a bill.
There are certain states that may try, but here in the south where the ban on gay marriage vote was something like 75% in favor, I dont think it will be seen in my lifetime (and I’m only 30). Sad days…
By USinUK
July 11, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
And, interestingly, Shaunti is wrong when she says that the majority of Californians are opposed to gay marriage:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9400728
For the first time ever, a statewide survey reports a majority of California voters favor gay marriage - a finding that pollsters describe as a milestone driven by younger people.
Truth is wrong, too, when he says that 70% of people oppose gay marriage:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/868/gay-marriage
In the most recent People-Press survey, which was conducted May 21-25, 49% of Americans said they oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry while 38% favored gay marriages. In July 2004, 56% opposed gay marriage, compared with 32% who supported legal marriages between gays and lesbians.
By Truth
July 11, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
Gale
How does civil unions work when a couple changes states? Is it the same?
By Gale
July 11, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this
For those 75% who voted against gay marriage, I want to vote on their marriage now. ::sigh::
By USinUK
July 11, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
Truth -
Damn, I can’t believe I am saying this, but that is really not a bad idea.
that’s okay … I won’t tell anyone you said that.
By Gale
July 11, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this
Truth, civil unions are specific to a state.
By Truth
July 11, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this
USinUK
Truth is wrong, too, when he says that 70% of people oppose gay marriage:
The CBS poll said that only 30% of Americans support gay marriage. Did you read it, or did you just need to find another poll that disagrees. We could do this all day.
I could show you conservative polls that say less than 5% nationally approve or liberal polls that say that over 75% approve. But I am wrong because I quoted a different poll than you? it’s not like CBS News is the Limbaugh Letter. This kind of crap is why I usually don’t bother being civil.
By Truth
July 11, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
Gale
So it doesn’t transfer either? I can’t imagine the mess. What if you go to a Civil Union State and get hitched, and move to a non Civil Union State but the company you work for is in a Civil Union State and you want insurance coverage for your partner. Or what if you live in a border twon between two states with opposing laws?
Sounds like the only people getting ahead are lawyers.
What a mess.
I need to get to work.
Good luck to you all. Have a great weekend.
By USinUK
July 11, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this
Truth -
I would suggest you read up on the Pew Research center - they are non-partisan and are considered THE research group for issues revolving around religion (much like Guttmacher is THE research group for issues revolving around abortion)
Also, just because 30% are for doesn’t mean that 70% are against. If you look at the Pew split, it’s 38% for and 49% against.
lastly, have the courage of your convictions to add a link.
This kind of crap is why I usually don’t bother being civil
you know, I’m going to let this statement stand on its own two feet for what it is. someone shows evidence that you are less than correct and this is how you reply.
By USinUK
July 11, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
Most Americans continue to think there should be some legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples, and 30 percent say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry - the highest number since CBS News began asking this question in 2004.
Twenty-eight percent think same-sex couples should be permitted to form civil unions, but more than a third - 36 percent - say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/13/opinion/polls/main4180335.shtml
good grief … that in NO WAY says 70% of people are against gay marriage.
By Mara
July 11, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this
“Do you want all the rights associated with marriage…(but)instead of a piece of paper that says marriage, it says civil Union.”
How is this different than having segregated drinking fountains? The water that came out of the “whites only” fountain was no different than that coming from one labled “Blacks only”, just as the benefits and rights of a “civil union” would (theoretically) be no different than those of a “marriage”…
“seperate but equal” is seldom equal.
By rick
July 11, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
the simple fact is that republicans don’t deserve a third term. they have failed at taking care of their own nation. it’s disgusting how they have abandoned New Orleans, DISGUSTING and UNAMERICAN. Cheney and Rumsfield did succeed at what their true agenda was to invade Iraq and cut taxes for the rich. vote for John McCain at your own peril, just disgusting. Have you no shame?
By Dana
July 11, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
“It is not up to a court to determine that “existing rights accorded to gay couples aren’t enough.” It is not in a judge’s job description to ensure gay couples “equal respect and protection.”
Actually, determining that all laws passed afford every citizen “equal…protection” is part of the definition of a judge’s job description…it’s called the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and I believe/assume California’s constitution, which is what this case was based on, has a similar clause. And yes, if a judge determines that an existing law infringes on the constitutional rights of a gay couple, which the majority of the justices did determine in this case, then it is their duty to determine that “existing rights…aren’t enough.”
By Jack
July 11, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
It’s Friday let’s lighten things up some.
Q: I’ve heard that cardiovascular exercise can prolong life; is this true?
the life of your car by driving it faster. Want to live longer? Take a nap.A: Your heart is only good for so many beats, and that’s it… don’t waste them on exercise. Everything wears out eventually. Speeding up your heart will not make you live longer; that’s like saying you can extend
Q: Should I cut down on meat and eat more fruits and vegetables?
Vegetables. So a steak is nothing more than an efficient mechanism of delivering vegetables to your system. Need grain? Eat chicken. Beef is also a good source of field grass (green leafy vegetable). And a pork chop can give you 100% of your recommended daily allowance of vegetable products.A: You must grasp logistical efficiencies. What does a cow eat? Hay and corn. And what are these?
Q: Should I reduce my alcohol intake?
A: No, not at all. Wine is made from fruit. Brandy is distilled wine, that means they take the water out of the fruity bit so you get even more of the goodness that way. Beer is also made out of grain. Bottoms up!
Q: How can I calculate my body/fat ratio?
A: Well, if you have a body and you have fat, your ratio is one to one. If you have two bodies, your ratio is
two to one, etc.Q: What are some of the advantages of participating in a regular exercise program?
A: Can’t think of a single one, sorry. My philosophy is: No Pain…Good!
Q: Aren’t fried foods bad for you?
How could getting more vegetables be bad for you?A: YOU’RE NOT LISTENING!!! …. Foods are fried these days in vegetable oil. In fact, they’re permeated in it.
Q: Will sit-ups help prevent me from getting a little soft around the middle?
A: Definitely not! When you exercise a muscle, it gets bigger. You should only be doing sit-ups if you want a bigger stomach.
Q: Is chocolate bad for me? A: Are you crazy? HELLO Cocoa beans! Another vegetable!!! It’s the best feel-good food around!
Q: Is swimming good for your figure?
A: If swimming is good for your figure, explain whales to me.
Q: Is getting in-shape important for my lifestyle?
A: Hey! ‘Round’ is a shape!*
Well, I hope this has cleared up any misconceptions you may have had about food and diets.
And remember: Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways. Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body
thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO HOO! What a Ride'*AND……
For those of you who watch what you eat, here’s the final word on nutrition and health.
It’s a relief to know the truth after all those conflicting nutritional studies.
The Germans drink a lot of beers and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than
Americans.
CONCLUSION Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills youBy Copyleft
July 11, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this
Truth, your solution is actually a reasonable one. Unfortunately, the majority will never go for it. If the government no longer sanctioned their union as an “official MARRIAGE,” they’d feel they had to give something up to appease the gays. The Chucks of the world would never stand for it.
Which is why we have courts: to protect the rights of unpopular minorities, no matter what the majority wants.
By Dana
July 11, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this
“If the word is so unimportant, then why the big fuss? I believe that California had already granted those 1100+ rights with Civil Unions. (correct me if I am wrong)”
Yes, you are wrong, because many of those 1100+ are federal rights and benefits, which do not recognize state-level civil unions.
By Copyleft
July 11, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this
the simple fact is that republicans don’t deserve a third term.
Rick, no matter how much I agree with you (and I do, I do!), I’ve got to ask: How is this relevant to the topic?
By Aint'DatDaTruth
July 11, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this
you know, I’m going to let this statement stand on its own two feet for what it is
Like even MORE evidence was needed.
By Truth
July 11, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this
USinUK
I had written hundreds of lines today, but you pick out one stinking number that is not even relavant to what I am talking about. Have you been taking lessons from the Big Joke?
It’s bullsh*t. You come here to fight conservatives. Your first post made that very clear. I come here to discuss an issue and actually engage in some great discussion, but you go out of your way to find ONE stinking number. I’m sick of it. You are no better and obviously no smarter than that half wit that you support, no matter how idiotic his stances are.
It is almost impossible to make any sort of point here without expecting the same old crap coming from the two of you.
Don’t preach to me about what I do when proven wrong, Ms supporter of mayor Nagen who STILL says that he did nothing wrong.
You can stick your sanctimonious preaching where the sun don’t shine.
By Truth
July 11, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
The Big Joke
You owe me five bucks.
Opening up several pages so you can continue posting after 5 is hardly something that takes intelligence.
By John Bisceglia
July 11, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this
It is immoral and unjust to expect gays and lesbians to pay taxes to a government that denies our families civil marriage. Period.
Marriage Inequality hurts families. It hurts children. It hurts grandparents. It hurts communities.
The GLTB comminuty does not exist in a vacuum. We are integrated into schools, churches, local politics, nursing homes, etc., etc. When OUR families suffer due to Marriage Inequality, YOU (heterosexuals) also suffer, socially and financially.
Watch “Freeheld” or “Tying the Knot”; if you still want to deny gays civil marriage, go right ahead, but do NOT expect myself or ANY other gay person to pay taxes to a society that treats us as “less than human”.
By woodie
July 11, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this
Well somebody got it right but for the wrong reason. The judges aren’t allowed to reinterpret the meaning of ‘marriage’. They are suppose to uphold the constitution. Marriage means a man and a women. A ‘union’ between gay people is not a marriage. Either write these people a new law or drop the whole thing. I don’t understand why gay people want to attach themselves to ‘marriage’. They can just live together and leave everyone else alone. At least they aren’t being executed like in Muslim countries.
By Philip Chandler
July 11, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this
I am appalled by the analysis written by Shaunti Feldhahn. Firstly, she cites from a representative of the “Family Research Council” — this is a vehemently anti-gay organization that has mounted an aggressive campaign to overturn the court’s decision through direct amendment of the California state constitution in November. One glance at the Website of this organization (www.frc.org) should suffice to convince the reader that this organization is overt in its raw hatred of gay Americans.
Secondly, Feldhahn misrepresents the result of the court’s decision that gay men and lesbians constitute a “suspect class” for the purposes of equal protection analysis. This does indeed mean that laws that discriminate against gay Californians have to survive “strict scrutiny” when challenged on constitutional grounds — but nothing in this holding can or will force any church to marry gay people against its will, nor does this holding mandate that personal prejudice can or will be punished by civil or criminal sanctions. In reaching the conclusion that gay Californians constitute a “suspect class,” the court has set the bar very high with respect to testing the validity of STATE ACTION that adversely impacts gay Californians. Churches and other religious institutions remain perfectly free to continue to spout their hateful dogma, and remain perfectly free to refuse to marry gay couples without any fear of punishment by the government. As the US Supreme Court observed in Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984) with reference to racism and the US Constitution, “The Constitution cannot control such prejudices, but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”
This is exactly the state of the law in California with respect to gay people and the manner in which the state may and may not treat them. The state cannot, for example, remove a child from the custody of a gay parent on the theory that the child will suffer harm at the hands of society when teased or unfairly treated by heterosexual peers for having a gay parent (this is analogous to the fact pattern explicated and presented to the US Supreme Court in Palmore). THE STATE must justify discriminatory action against gay Californians under the demands of “strict scrutiny” — Feldhahn apparently intentionally misrepresents the impact of this holding to drum up fears that churches will be forced to violate their own moral codes by marrying gay couples.
It is amusing to note the manner in which people such as Feldhahn write about “egregious, arrogant, and far-reaching judicial actions” when presented with cases in which Feldhahn’s type loses on the merits, yet praise the actions of courts that commit equally far-reaching actions that meet with the approval of Feldhahn’s type. The current US Supreme Court is extremely conservative and has handed down decisions that have severely curtailed the right of persons facing the death penalty to challenge the constitutionality of their trials and sentences by appealing to the federal courts for writs of habeas corpus. In Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996), the Court acted with indecent haste to hear and decide a case in which an extremely serious issue was at stake (causing four Justices to object, given that the Court decided to take this case as the Court’s term came to its end for the year); the Court subsequently held that the so-called “Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act” (AEDPA) was constitutional, thereby limiting the number of habeas petitions that death row (and other) prisoners may file to only one in most cases (a result described by some legal scholars as the sacking of one of the most basic premises of American law established since (and including) the signing of the Declaration of Magna Carta).
In short, when an arch-conservative such as Antonin Scalia hands down a decision that has far-reaching consequences and that is decried by more liberal Americans, Feldhahn falls all over herself to praise such decisions. Yet when a moderate such as Anthony Kennedy hands down a decision that has equally far-reaching consequences (e.g. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), abolishing the death penalty for prisoners who are minors when they commit capital crimes), Feldhahn’s type becomes apoplectic with sputtering indignation.
Something that Feldhahn would do well to remember is the following: the fact that a large majority of citizens may disapprove of gay marriages matters not one whit when a court of law is tasked with determining whether a prohibition against such marriages is constitutional. The California Supreme Court’s task was simple: to examine the law, to examine the state constitution, and to determine whether the law in question comported with strictures imposed on legislative acts by the Constitution of the State of California. This is precisely what the court did. Even the justices in the minority conceded the breadth of the scholarship that was reflected in the majority’s opinion.
For this, I sincerely thank the court.
PHILIP CHANDLER
By JokesOn
July 11, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
truth,
You owe me five bucks.
Opening up several pages so you can continue posting after 5 is hardly something that takes intelligence.
Bzzz. That is easy, but to infinitely post is to what I was referring. I forgot….I need to spell out every detail for you. I said to keep posting (not a finite meaning there) after five.
If you knew how packets worked you would understand. If you ran your own webpage/server, you would know how packets worked. therefore you lied about another thing (running your webpage/server).
Plus, your “easy” out of finite number of times rests on the knowledge I gave you during the “bot” ignorance.
By Gale
July 11, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
Woodie: I don’t understand why gay people want to attach themselves to ‘marriage’. They can just live together and leave everyone else alone. Because gays do not have simple things like the inheritence rights of straight couples.
By rick
July 11, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this
copyleft.
i am a 49 year old gay man from california living in gwinnett for 9 years with my partner of 12 years. we married in canada 2 years ago to celebrate our 10th anniversary.
republicans have used gay marriage as a wedge issue to win elections to help destroy this country. defeating republicans is my goal in life right now.
have you ever had someone basicly march to your front door in America and tell you we are restricting your rights based on our opinion of you.
i repeat “Have you no shame”….
let’s not be fooled by Shanti, she’d use it as wedge issue to promote her values over yours or mine in a minute.
she impowers the wrong people with her voice, column, opinion.
i don’t even recognize this country anymore.
By JokesOn
July 11, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this
pssst….Brian W
Can you hear me?
By Dana
July 11, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this
“Well somebody got it right but for the wrong reason. The judges aren’t allowed to reinterpret the meaning of ‘marriage’. They are suppose to uphold the constitution. Marriage means a man and a women. A ‘union’ between gay people is not a marriage”
Concerning the civil, legal status of marriage, it is defined by each state in the statutes passed by their legislature. And a court absolutely has the right to find that the existing civil, legal definition of marriage as defined by that state’s legislature has the effect of denying rights to some people, just as they have the right to find that any other law passed by the legislature infringes on some person or group’s rights.
By Archie
July 11, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this
The California Supreme Court did act properly overturning the bill against gay marriage. They had the legal right to do so and they did just that. The law is not about the will of the people all the time the law is the law and the majority does not always rule. Marriage is a contract and it’s not just about who loves who, in fact, it always has been about order and money. A spouse automatically has certain rights and privileges upon the death of the other spouse. A spouse also has the right to make medical decisions when the other person is unable to make those decisions for themselves. If someone has stayed with a person 55 years doing all the things,sexual and non-sexual that spouses I think they should be able to marry thus giving all the rights that come with a marriage contract. If marriage were just about love you would not need prenuptial agreeements but prejudice runs so strong in this country that people simply just won’t say what the real problem is. The real problem is that some people don’t like the idea of a man being sexually involved with another man. I specifically said man because lesbianism doesn’t bother people as much.
By Mark G
July 11, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this
Liar. My dear, no law will punish the church, synagogue or any other place of worship for failing to recognize the rights of anybody. If that were true, the Roman Catholic Church’s position on women and birth control would have eliminated their position in America. To me it appears that you have deliberately given yourself (and others) wrong. That is inflammatory information. Shame on you my dear. You should be required to think harder.
By Mark G
July 11, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this
Liar. My dear, no law will punish the church, synagogue or any other place of worship for failing to recognize the rights of anybody. If that were true, the Roman Catholic Church’s position on women and birth control would have eliminated their position in America. To me it appears that you have deliberately given yourself (and others) wrong. That is inflammatory information. Shame on you my dear. You should be required to think harder.
By woodie
July 11, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this
Hey Gale. I don’t understand ‘inheritance’ rights for gay couples. They just need to write a will. Otherwise their estate goes to family. If they have children no worries. Two people living together don’t need to worry about inheritance. They aren’t married. They are two people of the same sex living together. Why do they want to be saddled with ‘marriage’? You want your ‘roomie’ to inherit your estate? That sounds illegal and wrong on every level.
By Dana Bius
July 11, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this
“I don’t understand why gay people want to attach themselves to ‘marriage’. They can just live together and leave everyone else alone.”
Because without obtaining the legal status called “marriage,” not civil union, not domestic partnership, but “marriage,” they can’t give or bequeath their estates to each other federal gift or estate tax free, they can’t file a joint federal estate tax return, they can’t collect each other’s Social Security when one dies, they can’t assume that any state rights they do have will transfer if they move to another state…etc., etc. etc. These are all things that straight couples take for granted they will get if they marry. Now, if you want to change all those laws that give all those benefits to married couples so that instead of referring to one’s “spouse,” they read “spouse or civilly-unioned parter,” or some such nonsense, and guarantee that every state will recognize another state’s civil unions, then a civil union will be the same as marriage. Until then, it isn’t.
By Truth
July 11, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this
mara
*How is this different than having segregated drinking fountains? *
How is segregated drinking fountains different than the wording of a legal document?
I want the same thing you do, except i am really interested in fixing this.
No one wants the simple compromise of Civil Unions over the term of marriage. This is why I am a Republican. I want to fix the problem. The problem is human rights, but it is well hidden under the semantics of the term “marriage”.
Everyone is trying to make my approach, the same thing as separate but equal, but that is nonsense. The reason why the Republican Integrationusts fought “separate but equal” is that “separate but equal” was not equal at all.
Separate but equal was thousands of ways that was not going to be equal.
In a civil union, when most people would be going to get the marriage license, gay people could fill out almost identical papers and the legal ramifications would be settled. They would be done.. They could go to a church and have a wedding, if they wanted. They would have the same rights, which I would think would be the key, not the name at the top of the form.
The only question is: is that name at the top of the form worth denying up to 10% (a complete guess, I guess that is required now) of our population.
This “struggle” shouldn’t be a struggle. As I said to someone else. The approach that is now being unsuccessfully used is like trying to promote Nuclear Energy by showing people pictures of Hiroshima. The entire idea of human rights is hidden under the extremely emotionally charged subject of marriage.
Get rid of that emotionally charged aspect of this and people will gain equal rights: what I thought was the actual goal.
Whatever, people want the struggle and not the goal, apparently.
By Gandalf, the Grey
July 11, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this
Marriage is one man and one woman, no matter what the Kalifornia supreme court says.
By Truth
July 11, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this
The Big Joke
You owe me five bucks.
By Gandalf, the Grey
July 11, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this
WHAT NEXT! MEN AND DOGS? Woman and horses? Children and men? GOOD LORD STOP ALREADY! While ISLAM rides us down like dogs you silly people are worrying about gay marriage? Silly people!
By Woodie
July 11, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this
I am actually just here to ruin a good discussion. I can’t stand for a specific poster to have a civil discussion so this is what I do because I am just too dumb and not nearly enough of a man to take him on in a fair debate.
Don’t put too much stock in what I say.
By Truth
July 11, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this
rick
Congratulations on your union. I wish you the best.
Were you talking about all Republicans?
By JokesOn
July 11, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this
You owe me five bucks.
You still have trouble with reading comprehension, huh?
Again, although I know this is your absolute denial rearing its head again: I wonder if you are smart enough to know how to keep posting after five.
If you knew how…where is the proof on last nights page?
By Dana
July 11, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this
“Hey Gale. I don’t understand ‘inheritance’ rights for gay couples. They just need to write a will. Otherwise their estate goes to family. If they have children no worries. Two people living together don’t need to worry about inheritance. They aren’t married. They are two people of the same sex living together. Why do they want to be saddled with ‘marriage’? You want your ‘roomie’ to inherit your estate? That sounds illegal and wrong on every level.”
Well, for one thing, spouses in most states have protected inheritance rights that go beyond just what one spouse chooses or doesn’t choose to leave another in a will, like a year’s allowance that protects a spouse from being left penniless if the deceased spouse had a lot of debts and creditors are going to eat up the estate. For another, what could possibly be illegal or wrong about someone choosing who they want to inherit their estate? That’s the whole purpose of allowing people to do wills. I could decide that I want to leave my estate to my mailman and there’s nothing illegal or wrong about that unless I’m not mentally competent to make that decision. Finally, there’s a whole h*ll of a lot more to the rights and benefits marriage confers than just inheritance rights, and many of them can’t be gained by any means other than being married.
By Truth
July 11, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this
The Big Joke
You owe me five bucks.
it’s no surprise that you are not enough of a man to back up your bet.
But you owe me five bucks.
By woodie
July 11, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this
It’s very clear what needs to happen to make same-sex unions work like marriage. They need a constitutional amendment that says that. The legal system gets itself tangled up in too much ambiguity. I personally could care less what same-sex people want to do. But without the constitutional amendment we can talk all we want but never resolve the problem. And if you can’t get your constitutional amendment, then your are going to have to accept things as they are. California has always been a bit weird. No wonder lawyers make so much money. The books are all cooked.
By Truth
July 11, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this
The big joke
Prove it last night? So now that’s part of the bet?
I told you how to keep posting after five. To do it last night, I would have had to care enough to open up the other pages. You waaaaay overestimate your importance to me. You are just a big joke to me. Don’t you understand?
You owe me five bucks. Now rant all night long, twit.
By JokesOn
July 11, 2008 5:17 PM | Link to this
*Were you talking about all Republicans? *
Probably just republicans like you that want to merge christianity and government. Repubs like you who also then froth at the mouth when proven wrong or don’t get your way.
By RF
July 13, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
But if you had not taken that blind swing, yours and mine would be the only two posts from today that didn’t
Sorry Truth, that was indeed a bit of a cheap shot. You hang around here long enough, you tend to look for conflict before it arrives. That and I spent a few days around some of my more conservative friends recently and they just could not let this issue go. It brought on some heated debates and very narrow-minded stereotypes that left me very ill with their ignorance. I didn’t expect the crowd here to agree as quickly as they did. That doesn’t happen often!
You were right about the PR angle of this. It is indeed the word “marriage” and the image of two men kissing that people have a problem with. I witnessed that first hand being around the aforementioned group. They weren’t arguing about homosexuality as much as they were the idea of them being married and publicly declaring their love. That still grosses people out and they judge the issue based solely on their feelings about that. Perhaps it would help to change the wording and the process of becoming legally wed so that the church doesn’t have to be drug into the middle of this.
By Stopthemadness
July 13, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this
Truth JokesOn
Knock it off. This is not a casino.
JokesOn, it was stupid to make a bet that you never intended to honor. Truth, you were doing great on Friday until jokesOn appeared and you started with this. I understand your frustration with what USinUk wrote. I agree that she seemed to look long and hard for anything to question you on, but your response was completely inappropriate.
JokesON, we have seen Truth completely ignore you for days but you never stop attacking him, no matter how much he ignores you. 90% of the “new” posters that call truth names and post some very personal harassment against him only appear when you are also posting. You aren’t fooling anyone. It is spamming the board and we are all tired of scanning past your attacks while trying to find something to read.
USinUK, you are a smart and contributing member of this place and we all love your wit and insights, but it does seem that lately, you are more interested in taking sides in this flaming war than debating what truth is actually trying to say.
Truth. You need to control your temper. Others do not dislike you because of your political leaning. They dislike you because of that explosive temper. You saw on Friday that others are willing to discuss issues with you but they can’t talk to you if they feel that you are always on the verge of your name calling.
Make a covenant, decide to be civil, stop the finger pointing, whatever the three of you need to do, but this is ruining this forum.
By JokesOn
July 14, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this
JokesOn, it was stupid to make a bet that you never intended to honor.
I would have no problem sending $5 through paypal if he showed he understood websites well enough to keep posting after five, but he did not. I tried shot-gunning him to prevent opening multiple windows as a way of cheating. He was unable to meet the challenge.
JokesON, we have seen Truth completely ignore you for days but you never stop attacking him, no matter how much he ignores you.
It is a blog. I addressed him respectfully and by using his screen name, unlike his replies which he called names and cussed. I do eventually match his insults, but always after I am sick of his childish replies.
90% of the “new” posters that call truth names and post some very personal harassment against him only appear when you are also posting. You aren’t fooling anyone.
Believe what you want, but none of those posters are me.
Make a covenant, decide to be civil, stop the finger pointing, whatever the three of you need to do, but this is ruining this forum.
I agree. Look back and you will see that people leave after Truth starts his name calling and cussing, not when I am here posting with them.
By Lewis
July 14, 2008 8:27 AM | Link to this
Truth’s suggestion of treating everyone equally by defining ALL marriage as “civil unions” is a valid one. Personally, I’d prefer for government to get out of the marriage business altogether.
But as Copyleft and others pointed out, that’s a legislative solution that the majority (including theocrats like Chuck) would fight against. That’s why the gay-marriage backers are pursuing action in the courts—because the courts are the only structure of government where the majority-rule principle does not operate.
Shaunti Feldhan acknowledges that courts are intended to focus solely on constitutionality. As such, the California court’s actions were entirely proper. The results of an election or referendum, no matter how large or small the margin of victory, have nothing to do with the proper business of a court ruling.
By USinUK
July 14, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
StoptheMadness (and Truth) -
USinUK, you are a smart and contributing member of this place and we all love your wit and insights, but it does seem that lately, you are more interested in taking sides in this flaming war than debating what truth is actually trying to say.
First of all, thank you for the compliment. But, this is a discussion board / debating arena. We’re not here to sing kumbaya and toast s’mores. The whole W2W premise starts with 2 women who take diametrically opposing views, after all, and expects the message board to continue accordingly.
I’m sorry that you and Truth seem to think I’m picking nits about the 70% statistic Truth quoted above. However, if he is going to predicate his argument that gay marriage won’t happen in the near term because 70% of people oppose “seeing 2 men kissing” - and that statistic is vastly incorrect / misrepresentative of the truth - then, yeah, I think it’s a fair call to say “nowhangonaminnit” and challenge him on it.
But, thank you, anyway, for playing hall monitor - a voice of calm is always welcome -
By Gale
July 14, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
Does anyone want to comment on the media claims that the new story will be gay divorces? Apparently they feel the gay marriages will fail at the same “60%” rate as straight marriages and courts in states other than the state that legalized the gay marriages will be called on to settle the divorce. While the issue about the out of state divorce is valid and has already been faced, I dispute the claim that gay marriages will fail at the same rate as straight marriages; at least in the near future.
To start with, many gays currently marrying have been a couple already for many years. The wedding is not a frivolous, impulsive event. They have already faced many of the stumbling blocks that bring about divorce. Take my own divorce as an example from the days when I considered myself straight. I was married at 21 because I was raised to believe that was what people did. After about three years of trying to make it work, I realized I didn’t even want to know that guy, much less be married. So many young people marry and then grow apart. I believe mature gay couples who have been together for years are not likely to divorce for reasons like that.
By USinUK
July 14, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
Gale -
Does anyone want to comment on the media claims that the new story will be gay divorces? Apparently they feel the gay marriages will fail at the same “60%” rate as straight marriages and courts in states other than the state that legalized the gay marriages will be called on to settle the divorce.
I thought it was 48% (right around half, anyway).
At any rate, the divorce rate may stay low initially, but I’ll bet it will climb eventually to be on par with the hetero rate. why? cuz people are people and the things that kill hetero marriages (finances, family, sex, and kids) aren’t exlusive to heteros.
In fact, Matt Lucas (one half of the “Little Britain” creative team) is divorcing his partner after they’ve been married a little less than 2 years: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/artsandentertainment/tvandradio/article4167322.ece
Gays may fight tooth-and-nail for the right to marry, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not subject to the same human frailties as everyone else.
By Gale
July 14, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
I tend to agree, USinUK. Eventually, gay marriage is likely to fail at the same rate. I also thought the 60% seemed higher that I thought it was. I doubt it is any kind of story now and think the media is just searching for something to talk about.
By Lyrazel
July 14, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
Great thought provoking posts people! Little bickering and most everyone put quite a lot of thought into their comments. Wow!
My comment on this topic is simply: Americans waste too much time and government money in trying to control other peoples personal lives.
By USinUK
July 14, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
Lyra -
My comment on this topic is simply: Americans waste too much time and government money in trying to control other peoples personal lives.
I hear ya, sister.
I don’t have a problem with government licensing, though, as our “married status” does affect so many things (tax rates, insurance rates, etc) - however, as I said before, it should be civil unions across the board for everyone. If people want to go to their place of worship and be blessed to be considered “married” in the eyes of their god, then have at it.
By Truth
July 14, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
Stopthemadness
Thanks for having the courage to finally say something. It was a long time coming. but you see the results. Neither did anything wrong. The Big Joke is blameless and USinUK has never been wrong about anything, including looking through a couple of hundred lines of text to find a percentage that meant nothing to the conversation.
Your use of the term frustration is perfect. When you know that no matter how much you agree with the liberal mantra (All conservatives DO NOT think alike), that there will soon be a slobbering idiot, pretending to be other people, just so he can play childish games like this: Probably just republicans like you that want to merge christianity and government. Repubs like you who also then froth at the mouth when proven wrong or don’t get your way. it is very frustrating. It’s exactly like trying to talk to someone and someone else turns up music so loud that you can hardly breath.
The post wasn’t addressed to him, I have never advocated “merging” government and religion and just look at who was frothing.
USinUK came on looking for a fight. That means, to hell with the conversation, I want to find something to gripe about. She did the same thing when I mentioned that liberal push their beliefs on others and the New Orleans fight that has lasted for a couple of weeks came from her concentrating on a sideline statement I was making to another poster.
Some people come here to discuss issues. Others come he