Misunderstanding Of Power
May 16th, 2008 by ACTivist
You will have to forgive me for this. I usually don’t have links because I don’t know HOW to link. I also refuse to violate term agreements by reproducing without permission. So, as usual, this is a “seek and ye shall find” article unless one of my brave brethern want to pony up with an edit HERE! 
Todays Post-anything has a banner headline: “California Supreme Court Strikes Bans on Same-Sex Marraige”. Now you may think this another piece on homosexuality but really, Jonathan, it is not. This is purely the subversion of power by our political “leaders” holding office.
“The 4-3 ruling opened the way for the nation’s most populous state to join Massachusetts in allowing partners of the same sex to marry. The court’s order becomes final in 30 days, and it told county clerks and registrars to prepare.
Marraige is a “basic civil right” guaranteed to all Californians, “whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote in a 121-page ruling.”
I will agree with his statement here. ANYTHING in California is a basic civil right for those people. This is the part that gets me:
“Before (read that word carefully…..BEFORE…) the ruling, a conservative coalition submitted more than 1 MILLION signatures to place a constitutional (state) amendment banning same-sex marraige on the November ballot.
…..from California’s Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have allowed same-sex marraiges. “I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling,” (and this is when he should have shut-up but NO-O-O-O-O-O) he said in a statement. “…I WILL NOT (3 very important words) support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
Understand this. The court upholds the constitution as they interpret its meaning (and this is California) which is what courts do. The correct procedure for changing the constitution is being followed by having a vote for an amendment to this document. This is the people’s will. This is what changes the law that the courts are now obligied to honor and follow. And this knucklehead that wants to be the first foreign-born President of these here United States (yes, he had to pass the immigrants test-must have graded on a curve) is willing to NULLIFY the will of the people and SUBVERT the mechanisms of the office. If nothing else, this is why you NEVER, EVER marry a liberal. I think it will be shown that Arnold is WAY out-of-bounds here for having a lack of knowledge as well as just crapping on this counrty. Another case for secession in my book.
This entry was posted on Friday, May 16th, 2008 at 9:59 am and is filed under Judiciary, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Constitution, constishushion. Who gives a rat whats in the constitution, its what feels good that is right. Rule of law be damned. The judges trump the written word because they can feel your pain. Logic, respect for precedent naaagh. Its a brave new world ACT, suck it up.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:19 am
If you read my other thread on GE, the seed that was manufactured in Calif. with a spermicide that made men sterile should be put to wide-spread use in “California only” so there can’t be anymore bad seeds, if you know what I mean.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I agree with the origal post.
The Governator should wait to see what the will of the people of California is with regard to an amendment before saying what he will or will not support.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I guess he has forgotten already what happened to Gray Davis.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
What the supreme court should really be voting on is the banning of all Christians to congregate, whether it be in places of worship or in private. That is what is truly detrimental to society. I’m so tired of having their lifestyle thrown in my face all the time. I’m so tired of having to hear about their rights as Christians. So tired of being told that I have to accept them the way they are when they are hate mongerers. Right on California, now if we could just pass the above mentioned legislation I’d be the happiest person alive.
May 17th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Crabby H,
May the Lord bless you and teach you true tolerance of others views. May he teach you to love your neighbor, instead of yourself. May he teach you humility so you can overcome your pride. May he teach you wisdom, for it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Oh, I thought it was sarcasm. Was I wrong, Kathy?
May 18th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Jack, just turning the tables to show how ridiculous it is to go after same-sex couples
May 18th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
No one “goes after” same-sex couples in such fashion.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Jack, this post here had nothing to do about the process as it had to do discrimination against same-sex marriage. Sugar coat it as much as you want, it is what it is.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Kathy Preperation H
“this post here had nothing to do about the process as it had to do discrimination against same-sex marriage”
I wrote it and I also stated it. Personally, I’m sick to death of rehashing the immorality of homosexual acts/relationships. I no more want to talk about it then I want to convince you it’s worth talking about.
This is an election season. The elites are hanging on and trying to get elected. RINOs are dropping like flies because the Republican Party has lost its core positions. And individuals in positions of power are squashing the will of the people without authority or justification. Their is a liberal wave cresting and when it rolls in it will wash everyones rights away. This is about the Constitution, not the Bible. Go back into your hole until we do a thread on your favorite bitch.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:20 am
the Supreme Court has the constitutional right to review laws for their constitutionality if a grievance is brought to the Court’s attention. Conservatives talk about judicial review as though it were some new-fangled concept that is destroying America. Read a constitutional law book sometime. Judicial review has been part of the American legal system for over 200 years since the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. The expression “legislating from the bench” is Conservative, rhetorical nonsense that illustrates, a best, a primitive understanding of constitutional law.
By the way, it seems like you need a lot more preparation H, you’re a pretty big hemorrhoid Mr. Activist..
May 19th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Judicial review to legislate is the problem Prep H.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:53 am
“The Supreme Court has the constitutional right to review laws for their constitutionality”
This is precisely why the court should not have touched this at this time, given that this is coming up for a vote as a constitutional amendment.
In failing to wait, they chose to take a political position on the issue.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Our government is made up of checks and balances. If the people vote in a law, or the legislature passes a law it can still fail the constitutional test and be declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Civil rights should “never” be decided upon by a majority vote. If that were the case, blacks wouldn’t be allowed to marry, vote, and many other basic HUMAN rights we take for granted. Universal suffrage, gaining women the right to vote, took a long and hard fought “war” to win. Why should a majority deny basic civil rights to another just because they can “vote” on it?
May 19th, 2008 at 11:03 am
OF which civil right are you speaking in this case ? The right to marry a person of another sex ?
The benchmark of the constitutional test should be the constitution itself. Many court decisions fail this most basic test.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Prep H.
The right to marry is not infringed upon. Any man can marry any woman who will have him.
Marriage has always been about a man and a woman creating children and raising children. The ceremony has always been religious, and the state inventing a license for it was a shoddy way of raking in some taxes.
Marriage is not about living with someone else. It is about a blessing upon the children of the next generation.
In short gay marriage is not about a civil right, as you infer, it is about a small, obnoxious minority demanding not tolerance, but adulation for its aberrant behavior.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Prep. H,
One more thing, since when did unelected judges become the final arbiters of all that is right and good?
Their job is to determine if a LAW is constitutional or not. Nothing else. Their job is Not to determine if a law is moral, ethical or fattening. They certainly are not legislators.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:36 am
“Civil rights should “never” be decided upon by a majority vote.”
Civil rights, as amendments to the CA Constitution, ARE a majority vote. Article 18 from the CA Constitution tells us that. How can civil rights not be decided upon as a majority vote when it is clearly stated otherwise ?
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION
SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the
electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect
the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise.
The only way your statement can be made a truism, is if the Constitution itself is ignored..
May 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
jacob,
I will give you that the marriage “ceremony” has deep religious ties. But I believe you cannot extrapolate that to include marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Jacob,
Marriage is not about procreation, if that were the case, unfertile couples, or those that choose not to have children would not be allowed to marry.
By your statement any man can marry any women who will have him. Had it not been for the courts, black men could only marry black women. Should the people have been allowed to vote on that?
Civil marriage is NOT about religion, yes you can have a religious ceremony of course, but it is a legal document issued by the sate, not the church. By your statement Atheist should not be allowed to marry.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Kathy Prep H,
Looks like my homies slammed you a little. Seems that you don’t have a very good “working” understanding of the Judicial system. We conservatives (and others of knowledge) have been pushing the point that you can’t MAKE law from the bench-only get its understanding. Since too many liberals (none of them voted in by the people and having the position for live) dictate law from the bench, it has been determined that that is the natural progression after mis-interpreting the law from the bench. Kinda like going from crack cocaine to heroin.
Amendments need to be in place that judges may be removed BY the congress (state or local) when it is shown that law is being written rather than ajudicated. “The will of the people.”
If you want your marraige to be a civil ceremony doled out by state law, go to Mass. If California now can do the same, go there. I won’t live in a state (Soddam) where there is a violation of the laws of GOD or nature. That kinda makes me complissate, don’t it? I don’t follow society because society changes-still doesn’t make it right. And if moral fabric is what keeps decent societies together, I will work to make law that inhibit others “rights.” Just like what is being done to mine.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
The California Constitution was properly interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples, This ruling came from a supreme court that is dominated by Republican appointees, not liberal ones as you claim.
I have a simple question, how does same-sex couples right to marry effect you, and what are you afraid of?
PS
Love is not a violation of God!
May 19th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Love is not a civil right either.
Fear and loathe are very different emotions are they not ?
May 19th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I was responding to his comment
I won’t live in a state (Soddam) where there is a violation of the laws of GOD or nature
May 19th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
This should NEVER have been an issue to be decided by voters any more than the lawful right to discriminate against any human being should be decided by means of faith. Marriage laws do not favor or value the marriage of Christian over Jew or Muslim, Buhdist or even agnostic. They simply govern rights of property, custody, and familial responsibility.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Prep H.,
“Marriage is not about procreation, if that were the case, unfertile couples, or those that choose not to have children would not be allowed to marry.”
Nice red herring but no dice. If you look at the symbology in all marriage ceremonies it focuses on the hope of children. If the couple winds up infertile that is seen as a a sign of bad luck, and in some cultures is grounds for divorce. The position going in was to beget children. Success or failure was in the hands of fate, karma, God, or the great pumpkin. Infertility as a problem is a red herring this context sweat pea.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Prep H.,
“Had it not been for the courts, black men could only marry black women. Should the people have been allowed to vote on that?”
red herring number II. …
Being Black, of African descent, is a trait characterized not by a behavior, but by a pigment state. Being blond, blue eyed or ebony skinned are immutable characteristics that cannot be hidden, or modified. The court determined that based upon natural law, skin color was a viable basis to stop a couple form getting married. They could still beget children.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Prep H.,
“Civil marriage is NOT about religion, yes you can have a religious ceremony of course, but it is a legal document issued by the sate, not the church. By your statement Atheist should not be allowed to marry.”
Ignorance is not bliss. ‘Civil Marriage’ is an oxymoron akin to jumbo shrimp . Marriage has ALWAYS been in the purvue of the local _religious_ authority. Show me a culture where it was not? The current need for a marriage license came about when the state needed taxes. This is a modern development and it is unfortunate on two counts.
1. it is yet another tax by which the state gauges people
2, it confuses those historically ignorant
May 19th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Jacob,
Wha-a-a-t? I thought, um…..it’s not the ADHD? Wha-a-a-a-t? Hysterically confused and…huh?
P.S. This isn’t REALLY actIVIST. It is a friend of actIVIST!
May 19th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Jacob,
“Show me a culture where it was not?”
Gnostics, Egypt, The Far East, Early Europe.. Some US states today still permit common law marriage.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Prep H Kathy,
Stay on subject. The court made a ruling. The governor will support that ruling. The governor decided to forecast his ignorance by stopping something outside his power-and it hasn’t happened yet. Forecasting/broadcasting your ignorance in advance lets everyone know about you before you have even figured it out. Right Prep?
May 19th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
“This should NEVER have been an issue to be decided by voters”
What are you saying, that voters, the electors which are the final word on defining what does and what does not go into the CA Constitution cannot be trusted with this decision, that it must be left to unelected government officials ?
The court screwed up, they should have passed on this until the will of the people could be heard on the upcoming constitutional amendment referendum.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Dan,
That they decided not to wait is really inconsequential. Poor timimg but they made a ruling. Now if the will of the people vote to amend and win, I wonder if this same court will now rule as directed by the amendment?
May 19th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Dan,
Gnostic:
“Gnosticism: refers to a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god, the demiurge, who is frequently identified with the Abrahamic God. ”
And the reason you believe the Gnostics did not have religious marital rites is?
Egypt:
These where the most religious people in the world, stop typing after the third beer dude. Look up “Rite Of “Hieros Gamos”". Ignorance is bliss and you are one happy man!
The Far East:
I guess we can discount all those Buddhist, Animist, Confusion and Taoist ceremonies. Beer is good, too much kills brain cells. Leads to Drain Bramage.
Early Europe:
The Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, Scythian’s, and Etruscans had marriage. Are you going back to the Neanderthals? If so, then I concede this point as you are related to the group in questions. I will have a beer now.
Common Law Marriage:
You are throwing apples into the orange car here. If I have to explain this I will, but you will pay ya fruit-loop.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
O Danny Boy,
“I will give you that the marriage “ceremony” has deep religious ties. ”
OK.
“But I believe you cannot extrapolate that to include marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.”
Then why do it? Back when life was short and brutish the rite served a greater purpose than ‘lets have a party dude!’ People did everything they could to ensure the establishment of the next generation. You are applying 20th century 1st world wealth and leisure to the rest of human history. Don’t do that.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
ACT,
“I wonder if this same court will now rule as directed by the amendment?”
You mean obey the will of the great unwashed masses. Come, come the proletariat does not dictate policy to their betters in the party. These paragons of leftward ‘thought’ will squelch this unseemly display of bourgeois attitudes and religious counter revolutionary activity. In no time at all this unfortunate incident will be forgotten.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:38 am
jacob,
“Egypt : These where the most religious people in the world,”
So you are breaking with the church and stating that what traditional Judeo-Christian theology refers to as paganism is in fact religion ?
“Common Law Marriage: You are throwing apples into the orange car here.”
Your cart previously held “marriage”. Marriage is a broad term that includes apples, oranges, etc. Your challenge was “show me a culture”. I did that, suck it up..
May 20th, 2008 at 9:40 am
ACT,
“I wonder if this same court will now rule as directed by the amendment?”
I don’t see that they have a choice, that is their raison d’etre.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:02 am
jacob,
“Then why do it?”
Are you married ? Did you get married only to impregnate your wife, or were their other reasons ?
Man in general is a monogamous creature. It is our nature. Saying marriage is only religious implies that this is yet another human trait that is the domain of the church.
Marriage is a commitment between two people. Yes, procreation is normally done within the scope of marriage, but not always. This truth is also historical fact.
In Matthew you can find that Joseph took Mary as his wife. No mention is made of any ceremony. Was there one, or was there not ?
May 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Dan,
“Man in general is a monogamous creature.”
What? You on crack? Since we seem to be talking marraige here, I would think that woman is much more monogamous then man since woman usually uses her one and only brain whereas man tends to use his “little” head when dealing with relationships. (Exclusion: the statement made was in no means sited to fit ALL men or women and there are always exceptions to the statement. The statement made reflects no percentages nor is it absolutely relative to the author. This exclusion is valid in no states and cannot be held accountable in a court of opinion.)
May 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Dan,
“then why do it” is with respect to the religious - ceremonial aspect of the marriage event. You missed the point entirely.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:46 am
ACT,
thanks. Men are about as monogamous in their basic nature as fruit flies.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Dan,
Put the beer down and take three steps back. you are making no sense.
“So you are breaking with the church and stating that what traditional Judeo-Christian theology refers to as paganism is in fact religion ?”
I said marriage was always in the purview of the local religious authority. There are many religions. There is only one truth.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
ACT, jacob,
What, are you guys siamese twins joined at the buttocks ? This would explain ACT’s fixation on crack
“Man” was referring to humankind. If you have never heard this before, sorry, I did not mean to trip you up, you can get up now. Some fruit flies are monogamous per laboratory observation, and yes, some are promiscuous. Also, where monogamy is forced, the flies do benefit from this, becoming less aggressive and longer lived.
““then why do it” is with respect to the religious - ceremonial aspect of the marriage event.”
Tradition, and in many cases, it is expected. Many choose this, many do not, in contrast to your “always” statement of absolution.
While the two of you are letting the small stuff get wrapped around your axles on the CA court ruling, ponder this :
Will this court ruling allow a brother and sister to marry in CA ?
Will this court ruling spawn a requirement for churches to marry same sex couples ? If it stands, I believe that this ruling will ultimately end up in Federal Court for this very reason. as a 1A freedom of religion vs. powers of the state issue.
Can bigamists now seek protection using the majority opinion of this court ?
Can the state continue to regulate marriages between adults and minor children ?
Bottom line, Pandora’s box has been opened.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Dan,
“Did you get married only to impregnate your wife, or were their other reasons?”
This comment does not border on the risible, it IS risible.
The societal purpose of marriage has little to with the intra-marital relationship. Society does not care a wit if YOU are happy let alone FULFILLED. Divorce your needs from the needs of society boyo. The two do not overlap overly much and often the needs are at odds.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Danny Boy,
“Tradition, and in many cases, it is expected.” What si the purpose of the tradition in most cases. Tradition is usually the result of trial and error settling in on a solution that is less odious than the other courses of action
May 20th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Dan
““Man” was referring to humankind.”
In the Biblical sense, man is monogamous compared to SOME animals. I would say this is apples and oranges, though. Why make a statement that “man” is monogamous. Compared to what?
Good questions all. I will allow you to answer them with this noteworthy article. The U.S. government is now required to change its paper money to various sizes so that blind people can use them. This was a ruling on discrimination towards the blind. Any established law can be undone or circumvented with newer/unrelated laws. Yes, Pandora’s Box has indeed been opened.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Dan,
So I use to be a plumber. So what?
May 20th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
ACT,
“In the Biblical sense”
I was writing in a more anthropological sense.
jacob,
“it IS risible.”
Thought you would find it so,. I must admit, I was not the originator of this ludicrous idea, you were :
“Marriage has always been about a man and a woman creating children”
May 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Listen Jacob, your views on homosexuality is quite clear. Unfortunately you’re too arrogant to open up you mind and see that you’re wrong.
I think what’s missing here is anecdotal evidence. Anyone who knows gay people can see with their own eyes that it’s not a choice. A distinction should be made between a homosexual act and one’s overall orientation. Anyone can do the act (and has the right to - see Lawrence v. Texas), but orientation goes to how one is hard-wired, who one is attracted to. Homosexuality is no more a lifestyle than heterosexuality. A gay person is not some misguided heterosexual. Homosexuality exists in nature and it always has, which one can even say is evidence of God’s will. Get to know some gay people - they tend to be nice unless you’re mean.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Jacob, you want marriage to be based around religion. Make it a purely religious ceremony with no legal standing. What started as a religious institution has evolved into a legal institution and will have to face the legal challenges as we continue to evolve as a culture. Ultimately, our laws protect minorities from the majorities.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Dan, I’d like to vote on whether people named Dan should have the right to free speech. Maybe I’ll collect enough signatures to get that vote on the ballot. Maybe I won’t. But I want to vote on it. Should you therefore not have the right to free speech until the next election, just in case I get it on the ballot and win?
May 20th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Just like the ban on inter-racial marriage which the California Supreme Court struck down in 1948, this ban was also against fairness, against decency and against the Constitution.
It’s time to stand up for what’s right and not let bigotry invade our public policy. The Constitution of California has never been used to discriminate against one class of people and I hope and pray that it never is. Gay and lesbian families should be treated equally; and we should stop hurtfully shutting these couples and their children out of marriage.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Prep H Kathy,
” Ultimately, our laws protect minorities from the majorities.”
If you use today as the timetable, replace *minorities* with Christians, *our* with GOD’s and *majorities* with societies then you will have a correct statement. Otherwise man’s law is always based on the good of the majority. It’s the liberals that have it backwards.
BTW Just like being homosexual you also can’t help being a liberal. Unlike an infection, you are born with it and it does nothing but get “in your face” whether you want it to or not, right? I’m going to steal a good friends line….dork!
May 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Perp h,
“and we should stop hurtfully shutting these couples and their children out of marriage”
Unless these people were married to the opposite sex before, they wouldn’t have children (just not physically possible). If they are children of hetero marraiges and then put into homo relationships then these are children of sin and are being drenched in it further without the maturity to make up their own minds and deciding what is right and wrong. (I’m assuming that children means under the legal age of adulthood).
May 20th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Activist, Unfortunately I can see my soothing has left some of you hemorrhoids in tack.
Your ingnorace continues to pour out in every post, you poor soul!
May 20th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Kathy,
“Dan, I’d like to vote on whether people named Dan should have the right to free speech.”
Be my guest. Get a 2/3 majority in both houses, and get 3/4 of the state to ratify.
Afterwards, you may call me Daniel.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
“Just like the ban on inter-racial marriage which the California Supreme Court struck down in 1948, this ban was also against fairness, against decency and against the Constitution.”
A ban on gay marriage “against decency”? Hilarious!
May 20th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Decency? You really showed how ignorant of an ass you really are Jack!
May 20th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
” Ultimately, our laws protect minorities from the majorities.”
Our laws protect the majority from the minorities. Our laws are in place to protect society (the majority) from law breakers (the minority).
It is the enumerated civil rights of minorities that are protected under articles or amendments to a constitution.
jacob is anything but arrogant, obstinate maybe, arrogant, no.
ACT is the arrogant one
May 20th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I for the life of me have no idea why you all are so against same-sex marriage, it doesn’t affect you!
May 20th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Have you ever noticed how it is always the liberals who go for the ad hominem attacks? I suppose that’s just because they cannot argue logically against their opponents’ ideas, so they must attack their opponents.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
It does affect us, Kathy — you would force taxpayers and business owners to pay benefits for immoral behavior.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Jack, I was attacked and attacked (look at the past posts) and did very little swinging back - so get off your high horse.
Immoral behavior, says who?
May 20th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Mounting scientific evidence indicates that a combination of genetic, physiological and psychological factors contribute to determine one’s sexuality. If homosexuality is simply another natural aspect of the human condition, who among us has the moral authority to condemn gays for committing the sin of being exactly as God and nature intended?
Yet homosexuals continue to be portrayed by religious zealots as sinners, as if being gay were so enticing, only the most virtuous could resist the temptation. Since I am not gay, I get to take credit for resisting a temptation that does not exist.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
The legalization of gay marriage concerns only government-sanctioned civil marriage and the tax and legal benefits it provides. If certain religions refuse to recognize gay marriage, the First Amendment precludes the government from mandating that they do so.
Religion is frequently used as a weapon to attack our laws by people like you who see no distinction between your dogma and our Constitution.
Members of Focus on the Family, a Christian organization vehemently opposed to gay marriage, justify their opposition by pointing to the Bible’s prohibition against homosexuality and claim that laws that do not follow the specific instructions of the scriptures are “a bad idea.”
Those same scriptures condone polygamy (Deuteronomy), regulate slavery (Leviticus) and call for the execution of anyone who works on the Sabbath (Exodus).
While Leviticus describes homosexuality as an “abomination,” the penalty for which is death, it also describes the eating of shellfish as an “abomination.” Apparently, an evening at Red Lobster and a night of gay sex are equally offensive in the eyes of the Lord.
Because Christians don’t advocate the execution of homosexuals or the criminalization of popcorn shrimp, it is obvious that certain legal departures from scriptural mandates be tolerated. However, your selective outrage concerning gay marriage reveals that it is not the word of God that motivates your actions, but your bigotry.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Dan,
“Thought you would find it so,. I must admit, I was not the originator of this ludicrous idea, you were :
“Marriage has always been about a man and a woman creating children””
I am going to start drinking before noon because of you. PLEASE read the comments. I told you earlier that their is a huge difference between the needs of society and the needs of the individual. Stop taking what I write out of context. You are beginning to sound like zimzo.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Prep H.,
“you want marriage to be based around religion. Make it a purely religious ceremony with no legal standing.”
Correct.
“What started as a religious institution has evolved into a legal institution and will have to face the legal challenges as we continue to evolve as a culture.”
I would prefer to get the dog out of the hen house. I would prefer to see the government out of the marriage business.
“Ultimately, our laws protect minorities from the majorities.”
Total crap. Our laws are there to maintain society in a functional state. Without them we will return to the law of the jungle. Th law allows the weak to be eaten by the strong, and the amoral to wreak havoc upon the peaceful. The amoral and strong are criminals. They are the minority from which we are protected.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Prep H.,
“Mounting scientific evidence indicates that a combination of genetic, physiological and psychological factors contribute to determine one’s sexuality.”
Same goes for all other behaviors like criminality, substance addiction, murder and altruism. Just because there is a genetic component to murder it does not excuse the miscreant.
“If homosexuality is simply another natural aspect of the human condition,”
True.
“who among us has the moral authority to condemn gays for committing the sin of being exactly as God and nature intended?”
Total crap. There are genetic components to all behaviors. Does having a genetic tendency toward being a liar excuse mendacity? No. God gave us the law as a guidepost for what compunctions we are to resist.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
“I for the life of me have no idea why you all are so against same-sex marriage, it doesn’t affect you!”
I am against it as for me, I do not accept homosexuality as a natural state of the human being.
I also do not believe that a civil right exists for same sex marriage. In simpler terms, gay marriage as a civil right is dogma propagated by the gay community.
I am opposed to the court action as I believe they overstepped their bounds.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Prep H.,
You equivocate inter-racial marriage with homosexual marriage. This is a false dichotomy. An inter-racial capable of producing children. Being of another race is not a behavior. You ignored my earlier post on this.
“I think what’s missing here is anecdotal evidence.” Scientifically this is the worst kind of evidence.
May 20th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
“Jack, I was attacked and attacked….”
Swing at the people who attack you, not at everyone.
“Immoral behavior, says who?”
Just about every religion. That is where we get morality, after all.
“Mounting scientific evidence indicates that a combination of genetic, physiological and psychological factors contribute to determine one’s sexuality.”
So what? When the corruption of God’s intention comes is irrelevant. Is it OK for a kleptomaniac to steal? Is it OK for a pedophile to marry a child?
“homosexuals continue to be portrayed by religious zealots as sinners…”
Only ACTIVE ones are committing the sin. In any event, we are all sinners. We cannot define sin — only God can do that. The Bible is quite clear on the issue.
“Since I am not gay, I get to take credit for resisting a temptation that does not exist.”
Of course not, but do you not think that those who DO resist the temptation will be rewarded?
May 20th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
jacob,
I did not bring up needs, and chose to ignore your statement as I disagreed with it.
If you become a beer swilling derelict, please don’t blame it on me. But should you choose to become a Jack Daniels swilling derelict, please, invite me over !
May 20th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
“I suppose that’s just because they cannot argue logically against their opponents’ ideas, so they must attack their opponents.”
I have brought clear logic and facts, but you combat it with fiction.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Danny Boy,
Jack Daniels? Try Famous Grouse instead. Or Copper Kettle, both cost the same but tast way, way, way better.
May 20th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
What fiction? Why do homosexuals want to get married? To get the benefits.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
What fiction?
The bible - my opinion by I don’t judge you living your life by it – but I will when you ram your belief onto others and try effect their welfare
Why do homosexuals want to get married? To get the benefits.
Yes - to protect themselves, their assets and the one(s) they love.
Love is a very precious thing that very few get to experience. We are all dead for a long time. I’m sure you Jack would want to look after the one(s) you love and would do everything you could to provide for them well after you’re gone…..PLEASE don’t try to deny that from others who want the same.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Jakey Boy,
Never tried these, never heard of C(K?)opper Kettle, sounds intriguing.
I only drink single malt scotch.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
“Love is a very precious thing that very few get to experience”
give us a freakin’ break here..
May 20th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Dan I’m sorry you are so bitter
I hope someday you realize what live is all about
May 20th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Kathy,
You are sorely mistaken, I am not bitter. Your comments are totally nonsensical, like you are reading out of a children’s book, and transposing.
Your comment that I quote in #80 speaks volumes to your disconnect with reality. If this is your perception of love, than reality is not the only thing escaping your grasp.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Dan,
Jack Daniels is not a single malt. Copper Kettle is Whiskey, not Scotch. Come over, I will pour some and you will appreciate it.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Prep H.,
When you are ready to leave la la land let me know.
1. “Yes - to protect themselves, their assets and the one(s) they love.”
Can be done with a power of attorney and a Will. If you want to get married find a partner of the opposite sex.
2. “Love is a very precious thing that very few get to experience”
Maybe in your community, in mine there is plenty of love and respect. So sad.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
jacob,
Jack Daniels is not scotch. Per the Famous Grouse web site, this is.
I’m on the way, turn the porch light on..
May 21st, 2008 at 6:27 am
Dan,
I look at the Calendar.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Kathy Prep H,
“Dan I’m sorry you are so bitter”
Yes, Dan is bitter! I am arrogant! Jacob is angry and Jack is an ass to some. Did you get all that?
“Activist, Unfortunately I can see my soothing has left some of you hemorrhoids in tack.
Your ingnorace continues to pour out in every post, you poor soul.”
Soothing? A neck massage is soothing. A relaxing drink with my wife is soothing. You are anything but. I didn’t know you were such a fan. Why did you decide to pick this post to rear your ugly head? And I still have ‘roids from the “tack” you left for me to sit on.
When the law outlaws the name “Dan”, I will start calling him “bitter” because the law is the law. I accept the California law just as I accept McCain’t/Fiengold which is a travesty on the Constitution. Doesn’t mean it is right and doesn’t mean I have to like it but it is the law. All I can do is change it thru the standard process-amendment by the people. “For the will of the people shall prevail.” Enough about homosexuals. Don’t you even care about subversion of our most sacred countries document and the un-elected people who are doing it?
May 21st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Jacob
“You would force taxpayers and business owners to pay benefits.”
The majority of major corporations provide benefits to same-sex couples under the domestic partner benefit program now – what are you that out of touch?
May 21st, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Jacob
“All the protections can be done with a power of attorney and a Will. If you want to get married find a partner of the opposite sex”.
To your first point NO THEY CANT so educate yourself a little more about the protections marriage brings – Federal and State law provide HUNDREDS of protections that a WILL can not – you’re so so ignorant about this it’s pathetic.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Jacob
Yeah, “I’m” the one in la la land LOL!!!!!
You are so self-absorbed you cant /don’t want to see or consider the views of others – you rather live by the mob rule –
You live/breathe on a blog that does not promote thinking outwardly
Love? The only love I see here is “self love”
Stay in the cesspool you created if you want but know there is “true” love out there if you only open your closed ignorant mind.
I am DONE with this pathetic blog, (I know you’re applauding) I rather go to one were OPEN MINDED people can go back/fourth
I’m stamping you out!
BYE!
May 21st, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Oh I forgot to write this…
Just know, it is just a matter of time before same-sex couples will be allowed to marry in EVERY state!!! THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 21st, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Prep H.,
“To your first point NO THEY CANT so educate yourself a little more about the protections marriage brings – Federal and State law provide HUNDREDS of protections that a WILL can not – you’re so so ignorant about this it’s pathetic”
I have, the ‘HUNDREDS of protections’ claim is CRAP. Nice try, keep calling me pathetic.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Prep H.,
““You would force taxpayers and business owners to pay benefits.””
Not only am I NOT aout of touch, I did not write the above comment, Jack did. You know the one you called an ass. I love your debating style.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Prep H.,
“You are so self-absorbed you cant /don’t want to see or consider the views of others – you rather live by the mob rule …”
I see at this point you have devolved into name calling. Sputtering in anger is usually the sign that it is time to rethink your approach.
“You live/breathe on a blog that does not promote thinking outwardly”
Hardly. We welcome all comers, sorry to see that you are not capable of supporting your own preconceptions logically.
In your short time here you have insulted each person with whome you have carried on a dialogue. You are welcome to stay, just do not expect us to agree with you.
Come back when you grow up.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Kathy — there is a difference between doing something willingly and being forced to do it. Note the diffrence between making love and being raped.
“I rather go to one were OPEN MINDED people can go”
You’re so open-minded your brains have fallen out.
“it is just a matter of time before same-sex couples will be allowed to marry in EVERY state!!! THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Which “god” would that be? It’s certainly not the God of the Bible, who condemned homosexual activity.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Thanks, guys. I finally had someone holding dialog with me and you go and chase her away. She wasn’t even talking to me? Oh, your right. Okay then.
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:02 am
ACT,
She was too good for you.