In conjunction with the fight for equality by gay Americans against religious groups such as the Mormon Church, the battle by American scientists and researchers to freely use stem-cells for scientific research to develop potential cures for many of our world's life threatening diseases, may be soon won after our 44th President takes office.
President-elect Barack Obama is expected to lift restrictions on federal money for such research. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also has expressed interest in going ahead with legislation in the first 100 days of the new Congress if it still is necessary to set up a regulatory framework.
Stem cells are the building blocks that turn into different kinds of tissue. Embryonic stem cells, unlike more mature versions, are blank slates. If scientists could control them, they could direct regenerative therapy, perhaps allowing a diabetic's pancreas to begin produce insulin, for example.
Harvesting stem cells from four- or five-day-old embryos kills the embryo, which outrages opponents of this type of research. But supporters say hundreds of thousands of embryos stored in fertility clinics eventually will be destroyed anyway and that people should be allowed to donate them for research that could help others.
"I believe that it is ethical to use these extra embryos for research that could save lives when they are freely donated for that express purpose," Obama wrote during the campaign in response to 14 questions from scientists, doctors and engineers.
John Podesta, head of Obama's transition team, strongly hinted that the president-elect would deal with stem cell research soon after taking office Jan. 20. "As you know, he has said something specific about stem cell research, so I think you can expect that what he said in the campaign will be fulfilled once in office," Podesta said.
Obama made it clear during the campaign he would overturn Bush's directive. It is truly breath-taking to see the advancement of medicine, no longer being obstructed by the views of Pro-Life religious groups who want to exert their own definition of when life begins in their attempts to ban abortion, yet contradict themselves by not allowing medical researchers to preserve vital stem-cells from deceased embryos to help save the lives of those infllicted by life threatening diseases.
The ban on use of stem-cells and the ban on same-sex marriage are both similar examples of why our Founding Fathers believed in the Separation of Church & State in regards to laws protecting our citizens basic freedoms...of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in these United States of America. It's quite ironic that a stem-cell will have been granted use for medical research in all 50 states, while hardworking, tax-paying gay American citizens must wait to be granted the right of marriage in a handful of states....God Bless America.
The Loving Decision
-
Posted By: greatmidwest @ 11/24/2008 2:38:00 AM
-
Posted By: gesselman @ 11/22/2008 9:57:38 PM
The gay marriage debate is a slippery fish to handle. As a Bible believing Christian, I am particularly frustrated by how poorly my side of the story is represented in Newsweek. Religious opponents of gay marriage are depicted as hate-mongers simply for standing by our own belief in the Word of God, and how it clearly speaks against homosexuality. Many Christians have misrepresented this stance in a hateful manner, and that is unfortunate. But Truth is an intolerant bedfellow, and while hate is never warranted, immorality can not be condoned. As gays like Jefferson shout in my face for me to recognize their ???right??? to be married, they seem to forget that marriage is not really a right, but rather a ???rite???, or ritual, conferred by others upon the wedding couple. I feel certain that secular America will soon endorse this rite for gay couples. But Christians like me will never accept this as a holy union, and ???Christians??? like Quindlen who do, might need to examine the misplaced foundation of their faith.
-
Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/23/2008 5:11:54 PM
Please don't speak for all Christians.
-
-
Posted By: kitcey @ 11/21/2008 3:37:35 PM
I wish Newsweek would fire this author. I can't stand her blitheringly stupid article every other week. Please fire her and have only George Will write articles. All Newsweek is now is a bunch of blindly following Obama supporters and every 2 weeks, one conservative voice in George Will.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/23/2008 9:46:58 AM
Your side lost, Jethro. Boo hoo hoo!
-
-
Posted By: greatmidwest @ 11/23/2008 2:08:23 AM
Gesselman, as a "Bible believing Christian" as you put it, you are entitled to your own religious beliefs. How you interpret the Bible is your right as an American, but others' interpretations of the Bible must also be respected, which is why our Founding Fathers firmly believed in the importance of Separation of Chruch & State as the cornerstone to a free democracy ensuring liberty and justice for all Americans.
Our nation's democracy endured the past challenges to the civil rights of African-Americans and American women. It will also endure the fight of gay Americans for equality under the laws of the US government. Organized religion is not the law of the land, and never will be if our great nation is to remain the standard of democracy for the free world. The foundation of faith is in our churches, mosques, synagogues., and temples. The foundation of our government is the US Constitution. The governing laws of 6 democratic nations now upholds the civil rights of its gay citizens and their right to same-sex marriage. It's now time for America to once again own up to her own history of discrimination and racism, so as not to be viewed as hypocritical when she challenges other nations' suppression of human rights. God Bless America
-
Posted By: greatmidwest @ 11/22/2008 5:19:09 PM
Our Founding Fathers established a unique govermental arrangement for which our nation's democracy was to be carried out in adherence to the US Constitution. This arrangement included the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches of government, each with their distinctive role and responsibilities with each branch functioning as a "checks and balances" on the other as the rule of law.
Under the Bush adminstration there has been such an infringement of the Executive Branch's role with regards to both the Legislative and Judicial Branches of government on both a federal and state level. Such examples include the decision to declare war in Iraq with the misrepresentation of CIA intelligence to Congress, the atrocities of Abu Ghraib and the illegal detentions at Guantanamo Bay Prison, the highly controversial interpretation of the Patriot Act which included illegal wire-tapping of US citizens, the highly questionable firings of US attorneys, the infringement of States Rights notably in regards to the civil liberties of gay Americans, the governmental intervention regarding a highly publicized right to die case in Florida, and a clear disregard for upholding a Separation of Church & State in the devisement of govermental policy. Historians may even include the unprecendented contentious outcome of the 2000 Florida Presidential election which was settled in the US Supreme Court.
Most recently, California courts agreed to hear a challenge to Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage. The question before the court asks if Proposition 8 is an amendment to California's Constitution or a revision. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told CNN's Anderson Cooper that if Proposition 8 is a revision to the Constitution it would mean that the courts no longer had a role in determining if the rights of minorities had been violated.
"Should we go in front of the voters every time there is an adjudication in the courts that we don't like and submit the rights of minorities to the whims of the majority, based upon the morality of the day?" asked Newsom. "That's what's happened here in California."
Newsom argued, "Well, what's next? I mean, now, if this is the basis of principle, what other rights should we take away? And is the court powerless in each and every case when the voters by a majority decide to change the constitution, again based upon the issue of the day?"
The balance of power of each branch of governemnt, whether on a state or federal level, much be upheld to the written laws of the US Constitution. God Bless America
-
Posted By: kitcey @ 11/21/2008 3:39:35 PM
Gays lost no rights on Nov. 4 when Prop 8 passed. Every legal right they were entitled to with civil unions is what every straight couple has under marriage. What gays want makes no sense. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
-
Posted By: andyfbos @ 11/22/2008 11:58:24 AM
Separate (civil unions vs. marriage) is not equal.
There are 2 types of marriages: 1) religious marriage, and 2) civil marriage. They only share the same word for a religious union (in #1), and a government union (in #2). Remember...separation of church and state? When someone gets married religiously, that marriage is not recognized by government (although just about everyone who gets married in a church/synagogue has the civil union done at the same time), and vice versa. -
Posted By: buckbuckbuck @ 11/21/2008 7:13:52 PM
Are you kidding me? Civil unions do not contain the same rights as a marriage otherwise gays would not be fighting for rights. You would not write that if you knew the facts. Some states have and call same sex partnerships civil unions and other call them domestic partnerships. The level of rights, obligations, responsiblities and beneits varies from state to state and none of them carry the same rights as marriage. Gay couples do not care about the word marriage. All we want are the same rights and privileges as married couples. Call it marriage, call it a CU or DP call it what you want but give us the same rights. Why is that idea so terrible to some people?
-
-
Posted By: jnesbit2 @ 11/15/2008 9:16:54 PM
Of course, if you ignore the Bible--the New Testament, in Romans--then these "gay" "marriages" will be viewed as legitimate because without a standard of truth people can and do make up what is "right" as they go along. Anyone with any claim to acknowleding the Bible as the source of truth can't get around the categorization of homosexuality as a moral sin.
As to whether someone acknowledges the Bible as truth, well, that's another question.-
Posted By: andyfbos @ 11/22/2008 11:53:35 AM
There are 2 types of marriages: 1) religious marriage, and 2) civil marriage. They only share the same word for a religious union (in #1), and a government union (in #2). Remember...separation of church and state? When someone gets married religiously, that marriage is not recognized by government (although just about everyone who gets married in a church/synagogue has the civil union done at the same time), and vice versa.
-
Posted By: thark ME @ 11/15/2008 9:58:56 PM
...and it's a question that the original framers of the US Constitution thought better left out of the conversation. It's STILL better left out of the Constitution. If it had been left out in the first place, and not forced onto the ballot by a craszy amount of out of state money; and had all the fascist Churchies kept their religious tyranny in the church, that $73 million wasted on this temporary obstacle to "equality for all under the law" could have done some actual good for society, and not taken it backwards. It's especially egregious in the curent economy. Stealing peoples' rights, particularly under these circumstances, is morally bankrupt and history will ultimately condemn those who backed it with such mean spirited
vehements.-
Posted By: Farlessthanever @ 11/16/2008 12:30:05 AM
I have to say that nowhere in the constitution is marriage enshrined as a right..."equal rights" is a phrase that is being used as a stalking horse for this issue. Judges were not intended to generate "rights" out of thin air. Marriage is a religious ceremony...let's leave it that way. I would be perfectly happy is everyone was required to have civil unions...gay or straight.. It is not something that the government should be involved in.
-
Posted By: andyfbos @ 11/22/2008 11:51:48 AM
There are 2 types of marriages: 1) religious marriage, and 2) civil marriage. They only share the same word for a religious union (in #1), and a government union (in #2). Remember...separation of church and state? When someone gets married religiously, that marriage is not recognized by government (although just about everyone who gets married in a church/synagogue has the civil union done at the same time), and vice versa.
-
-
-
Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/20/2008 9:46:08 PM
As to whether some risk bibliolatry, that's up to them.
-
Posted By: Cohen03 @ 11/16/2008 2:28:58 AM
I hope you aren't a woman trying to teach me, a man, because I suffer not a woman to teach. Please see 2 Timothy 2:12 on why women are inferior beings. Thank you. Now let's pass a motion declaring that all teachers must be male because God said so. Theocracy is such a great thing!
-
-
Posted By: Longhorn99 @ 11/21/2008 6:28:48 PM
I find it very interesting that it was the increase in African American vote ultimately allowed for Prop 8 to pass. Due to their religiously rooted conservative views against homosexuality, the vote in favor of Prop 8 was cast along with the vote for the first African American President. I find it rather ironic that African Americans fought so hard to have the same rights as every other American citizen and yet they now deny that to the Gay/Lesbian community. Every heard of the term, "Pay it forward..."?
-
Posted By: kitcey @ 11/21/2008 4:38:34 PM
Instead of restructuring Detroit auto makers, the Democrats want to try to unionize the foreign auto companies in the South to "level the playing field." Of course the law of unintended consequences will take over if that's done, and the foreign auto makers will abandon this country, taking all automobile jobs in the United States with them back to Japan, Germany, and Korea, leaving the US with no auto manufacturing or automobile jobs at all.
When will the stupid liberals finally understand that unions are the death of competitive capitalism? Probably never, because liberal is just another name for socialist comrade.
-
Posted By: Ronnospin @ 11/20/2008 10:44:53 AM
This discussion has reminded me of a line spoken by Mr. Spock in one of the Star Trek movies: "The good of the many outweigh the good of the few - or the one". Human society has always worked best when the greater good for all was observed and followed. This doesn't mean that gays should go back in the closet, or be beaten and killed for who they are. But why the drive to redefine marriage? There really can't be any arguement about the definition except by the most ardent activists. Settle on another word that provides the same benefits in society. It's called compromise; and our country and our society will not survive without it.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 11:07:23 AM
""The good of the many outweigh the good of the few - or the one". "
Are you a communist?-
Posted By: Ronnospin @ 11/20/2008 4:02:29 PM
I'm actually more of a Libertarian. And I was referring to the idea of majority rule - fictitious science fiction illustration not withstanding. And the Lovings were a man and woman who were married. They happened to have different skin colors. A different situation altogether. So my question remains: why the need to redefine a word and institution that has been around since human culture began? That's it. Why does 10% of a society get to make the other 90% change?
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 4:13:14 PM
"I'm actually more of a Libertarian. "
Funniest Libertarian I ever saw, spouting that communist crap.-
Posted By: orangeandblue @ 11/21/2008 2:55:16 PM
What does that 10% change about the other 90?
-
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 4:12:12 PM
"So my question remains: why the need to redefine a word and institution that has been around since human culture began?"
It's already changed, recently. Until 1967, the definition was "a man and a woman of the same race". And in 1967, 13% of the population made the other 87% change.
This is simply a continuation of that change.
-
-
-
Posted By: JerryinCincinnati @ 11/20/2008 11:10:09 AM
So, you're basing your argument on the screenplay comments of a fictitious science-fiction character? That's pretty rich! But it occurs to me that the greater good is really to eradicate discrimination against people for illogical reasons. I believe your comments perfectly illustrate the type of thinking that was used to prevent the legal definition of marriage in Loving v. Virginia. People of that time used the same language and arguments to prevent legal recognition of the Loving marriage. Why can't you understand that?
-
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 3:02:26 PM
"I don't understand how Loving vs. Virginia has anything to do the current gay marriage situation."
It's very simple. Either you believe in equality in law, or you don't. Choose.
"And there are many moderates like myself who were very offeneded by being called bigots and worse by gays for not supporting their issue."
And there are many people who are offended by your willingness to deny basic rights to American citizenship based on your obsession with what consenting adults do behind closed doors. It turns out you don't have to be a rabid right winger to be a bigot. As I said, you either believe that all Americans are equal in the eyes of the law, or you don't. So spare me your outrage...I reserve my respect for people who don't feel the need to exclude up to 10% of the population from the same rights the rest of us enjoy.-
Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/18/2008 2:31:57 PM
Where do rights come from? Either they are derived from common agreement among mankind or they are given by God (see the Declaration of Independance). It kind of puts those who deny the existance of God in a difficult position. If there is no God, then rights are only valid as long as there is general agreement. And yet, these same people are the first to complain that their rights trump the will of the majority. Again, where to rights come from?
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 8:42:11 AM
"Where do rights come from? Either they are derived from common agreement among mankind or they are given by God (see the Declaration of Independance). "
False dilemma, Andrew. There is a third, more accurate option: They are seized, and then assumed (in our case, by our constitution).-
Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/20/2008 11:29:14 AM
Way to duck, Doc. I still don't think you've answered my question, only avoided it. I do appreciate the creativity though.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 12:25:29 PM
I didn't duck. You asked a question, and I answered it. The fact that I didn't use one of the two answers you thoughtfully provided for me is not my problem.
-
Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/20/2008 1:07:14 PM
To which I ask, where are the rights "seized" from? As you've allowed that the original understanding of the founding fathers was that rights are given by God, my contention is that rights are seized from Him. My point being that if rights come from God and God is good, we have the ability but not a "right" to do wrong. This argument is outside of any particular religious belief or particular definition of what is right or wrong. I'm simply trying to show that there is a lot of confusion as to what is and is not a "right".
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 2:24:18 PM
"To which I ask, where are the rights "seized" from? "
In our case, King George III. While he might have been considered a party animal in his day, he was hardly God.-
Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/20/2008 3:15:33 PM
OK--I give up. You obviously don't want to engage in a debate about the nature of "rights". I can understand why, but I'm nonetheless dissappointed. Maybe next time.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 3:33:35 PM
No, I answered your question. Once again, though, I chose not to respond with one of the "only two possible answers" you provided. Your inability to cease using the "false dilemma" fallacy does not indicate that I do not want to debate rights...It just means I am not going to necessarily respond in the way you wish I would.
-
Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/21/2008 12:15:10 PM
Actually, by stating that our rights were seized from King George, you did indeed answer in accord with my previous contention that rights either come from God or man (King George was a man). There are many problems with the idea that rights come from man (whether singular or plural). That is why Jefferson tried to make King George understand that the colonies claim to independance was not based on opinion or might--but on rights given by God--something transcendant of mankind.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 12:36:22 PM
" There are many problems with the idea that rights come from man (whether singular or plural)."
Name them.-
Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/21/2008 12:42:35 PM
Before I do--is your position that rights come from man (whether singular or plural)?
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 1:17:54 PM
Why? Will that change your answer?
It was a simple question, based on your own comment.-
Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/21/2008 2:02:26 PM
It won't change my answer--but my argument will be built "precept upon precept--line upon line." As such, I can't have you "back-sliding" on me. I've logically proven that there are only 2 possibilities and you haven't been able to refute it. So--make a choice or we leave it here. As a side issue--I won't be able to respond after this posting until Monday morning (my computer's on the fritz at home.) It's in your court whether we continue. If not, I've enjoyed our little sparring session.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/20/2008 11:47:06 AM
Would you at least allow that the original understanding of the founding fathers was that "rights" are given by God , intrinsic to all humanity and as such cannot be taken away by the majority? (note I'm not asking if you agree with this, only your opinion of their understanding of this topic vis-a vis the Declaration of Independance.) Obviously, a persons understanding of what constitutes a right is dependant on their understanding of where rights come from.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 12:24:19 PM
I'll agree that Jefferson started the DoI with that. However, the DoI is not a legal document, and Madison was very careful to leave language like that out of the constitution.
-
-
-
Posted By: Andrew21 @ 11/20/2008 7:17:41 AM
No reply? What's up, Doc?
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 8:42:58 AM
Calm down, Sparky. I might be on often, but I'm not on 24 hours a day.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: thinkotsdbox @ 11/20/2008 6:28:05 PM
Here's the difference, we had an election. You want to over rule the people Ms Q. with judges. your an elitist. That's not loving.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 9:17:07 AM
The people cannot vote away the rights of a segment of the population.
-
Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/20/2008 9:23:51 PM
But trampling minority rights is un-American.
-
-
Posted By: materboni @ 11/16/2008 12:28:53 AM
If money talked here, why didn't the gay side win when they outspent the straight side some $49 million to $29 million?
-
Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/20/2008 10:27:37 PM
Because the proponents won with lies & manipulation.
-
Posted By: Wild Clover @ 11/16/2008 3:58:59 AM
Uhhh, maybe because you have the numbers reversed?
-
-
Posted By: megace @ 11/16/2008 12:21:20 AM
While it's true that the Bible says it is an abomination for 2 men to lie together, these are not the words of Jesus. They were written by one of His ministers (also known as disciples). The Bible also says if your ear offends me, cut it off and that menstruation is a curse upon women and that all women should be subservient to their husbands. Using religion to spread hatred is a much greater sin than loving someone of the same sex would be. I would caution white America against infringing on the rights of minorities, for in a few decades whites will be the minority. Oh, and by the way, there are quite a few straight marriages I wish the government had been able to prevent.
-
Posted By: hokiemet @ 11/16/2008 1:07:17 AM
Jesus endorsed the law including the abomination you cite. Read Matthew 5:18 - "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."
-
Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/20/2008 10:25:46 PM
But Jesus also said the law is made for people, not people for the law. Out of compassion, he broke the law (feeding people on the Sabbath). I'll take that compassion any day.
-
-
-
Posted By: jessegdfc @ 11/16/2008 12:21:20 AM
I am a Christian and I agree with FRMR IRS AGENT. I am a Catholic and sober to the fact that our Christian traditions and teachings are chock full of sexist, racist, fear-mongering. We are a witness of fear and ignorance, rather than a witness of welcome, hospitality and compassion. Jesus, save me from your followers when we act so fearfully and do such violence in your name. Prop 8 will fall. Love always triumphs over fear.
-
Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/20/2008 10:17:17 PM
God bless you!
-
-
Posted By: alachuapotter @ 11/15/2008 10:14:37 PM
The difference is God, in the bible says that homosexuality is wrong, but nowhere in the bible does He say that having a dark skin is wrong. This is not racism or hatred. God says to hate the sin, but love the sinner. . Marriage was and still is a sacred union set up by God ,for a man and a woman to become "one with each other" and to procreate. This is not possible with two people of the same sex. It is not in gods plans for His children.
-
Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/20/2008 10:02:17 PM
But it is possible to have a loving family with or without children with spouses of the same sex. And please check your Bible. A lot of those passages have been willfully misinterpreted in the same way they used to fulminate about "the curse of Ham."
-
Posted By: kellly33 @ 11/16/2008 7:06:05 AM
Actually, Genesis 9:20-25 was often used as a defense of the enslavement of black people; Noah cursed the descendants of his son Ham, who had darker skin, to be the slaves of the descendants of Ham's brother's. It's a ridiculous interpretation, but the Bible really is open to many ridiculous interpretations. That's why the founding fathers wisely removed it from legislation and why the argument that God condemns homosexuality is at best irrelevant to the argument of the legality of homosexual marriage.
-
Posted By: FRMR IRS AGENT @ 11/16/2008 12:08:58 AM
GOD, WHY DO YOU BRING UP GOD? WHAT DOES HE HAVE TO DO WITH THIS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE TO DO AS THEY WISH SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT INFRINGING ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. THEY ARE NOT TELLING YOU TO RENOUNCE YOUR RELIGION; JUST DON;'T USE YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TO INFRINGE ON THEIR RIGHT. NOW, READ A CHAPTER IN YOUR BIBLE AND GO TO BED! YOU HAVE BEEN UP TOO LONG.
-
Posted By: Krissy483 @ 11/15/2008 10:41:21 PM
Then you didn't read the article. Religion was used in the argument against interracial marriage. It was argued by folks like yourself that the bible forbid it. And your point is moot, as the bible's word as proof has no merit in law. That was the decision of our forefathers. And therefore your point has no place in this argument.
-
Posted By: NJ to Miami @ 11/15/2008 10:24:31 PM
And if God was runningthe US government then divorce would be illegal. Adultry punishable by death. That is exactly what the bible says. Why do bible lovers get to pick and choose what bible law they obey?
-
-
Posted By: clubber9 @ 11/15/2008 9:42:19 PM
I'm amazed that you are comparing black civil rights to homosexual marriage. If I was black I would be outraged! People choose to be homosexual (I know, I know, your liberal college professors told you otherwise).
Conservative families are tired of being bombarded by the gay mafia. Voters understood that homosexual marriage has nothing to do with "equal rights".-
Posted By: yeson8forCA @ 11/16/2008 2:33:23 AM
Thanks Clubber9-
I am one fo the millions of African Americans in this country that finds it insulting with the gays try to compare their lifestyle to our RACE struggle- it's not the same.-
Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/20/2008 9:49:31 PM
No, but there are some similarities--ask a gay black person.
-
-
-
Posted By: MDH SacramentoCA @ 11/15/2008 9:39:12 PM
I see now! All this time i thought that this was a democracy/representative republic, meaning the PEOPLE vote for or against an issue and then it is made so. So, if a few malcontents aren't satisfied with a particular decision, they cry, whine, and have a hissy-fit and go screaming to "mommy" -this case being the government because they're sore losers. Typical pathetic lefty behavior. You people got your "messiah", so please, shut the hell up now! Stop acting like spoiled children just because you didn't get your candy! Stop the whining please; you're only hurting the cause of gay rights by making assinine spectacles of yourselves.
The reason I voted in favor of prop 8 is NOT because i'm a homophobe; i could honestly care less who marries who! The real issue for me is judicial activism; 4 judges (who were not elected) took it upon themselves to overturn a law that was voted on and supported by 61% of the people of California! The very "fascism" that gay-rights people claim to despise is easily overlooked when it works in their favor!
If you want to sway people to your side, stop having "temper tantrums" across the country and get to work persuading people with sensible, articulate prose and a reasonable excercise in patience. A lot of people have to be brought gently into the reality of gay marriage; just as they were with interracial marriage 40 years ago. If you try dragging them over too quickly, they will resist -as evident in California and other states. Gay marriage will happen people, just don't get so childish about it!-
Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/20/2008 9:48:40 PM
But sometimes it falls to courts to protect minorities--and interpret the law.
-
Posted By: ltsisneros @ 11/16/2008 9:35:14 PM
The *people* of California chose to accept the US Constitution when they became a state in 1850. They ratified their present Constitution almost 130 years ago. That state constitution contains provisions for courts to interpret its application to all other laws, whether legislatively or popularly created. That state constitution also contains a provision for equal protection under the law. Those ratification votes happened a long time ago and supersede any laws made thereafter if there is a conflict.
This is not just representative democracy, it is *constitutional* representative democracy. It is not as simple as "I win, you lose, shut up." -
Posted By: FRMR IRS AGENT @ 11/15/2008 10:10:29 PM
FIRST OF ALL, YOU ARE A HOMOPHOBE! AND A RATHER STUPID ONE AT THAT. YOU ARE ALSO A BIGOT. NOW, LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT: IF 61% OF THE PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA VOTED THAT MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN WAS ILLEGAL, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE A TEMPER-TANTRUM OVER? NO, YOU WOULD JUST GENTLY TRY TO PERSUADE YOUR FELLOW CALIFORNIANS THAT THEY MADE A MISTAKE AND GO OUT LOOKING FOR A SAME-SEX PARTNER BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR SPOUSE ARE NOT LEGALLY MARRIED..WHERE DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT MARRIAGE IS ONLY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN? FROM THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION? FROM THE U.S. CONSTITUTION? FROM THE BIBLE? GROW UP OR GO BACK INTO THE HOLE YOU JUST CRAWLED OUT OF.
-
Posted By: MDH SacramentoCA @ 11/15/2008 10:23:28 PM
FRMR IRS AGENT, apparently you didn't read my post. I am not opposed to gays or gay marriage! I am opposed to the very few (non-elected) telling the vast majority that they are wrong or that their beliefs are wrong. My vote was a protest against those judges! I am indeed open to gay marriage, but i am not open to being yelled and screamed at by its supporters and told that i am a bigot. If you and I disagree about an issue, fine. "Don't act like the screaming children" i described in my original post.
BTW: insults and name-calling aren't necessary. You only serve to showcase the anger and bitterness of the left in this country. Calm down, and please give your Capslock key a rest. Thank you.-
Posted By: FRMR IRS AGENT @ 11/16/2008 12:26:04 AM
i am sorry if i screamed at you. my cap lock locked. now, you are for gay marriages but voted for prop 8 because 4 judges said something you didn't like? POOR BABY!! well, .............................i have to tell you this: the ban will be struck down. sooner than later. the fat lady hasn't sung yet. and why do people like you get upset when someone calls you a bigot and yet when you and/or your friends bomb an abortion clinic you don't get upset? you have too much time on your hands. but what else is there to do in sacramento these days?
-
Posted By: MDH SacramentoCA @ 11/16/2008 1:16:54 AM
There you go again, FRMR IRS AGENT, making assumptions about those whom you know nothing about. So, to clarify: 1. I'm not the one who's upset -as obviously you are. 2. I do not believe in organized religion nor interpreting said religion to fit Constitutional law. You mistakenly believe all Conservatives are Christians. That is simply not true. One could then easily make the assumption that all Democrats are Marxist/Communist America-hating dope-smoking hippies, but that wouldn't be true either. Saying that I would bomb an abortion clinic is downright hate-speech! As a liberal, you should be ashamed of yourself for your prejudicial comments. Please leave the bigotry stuff to Michael Savage.
You are correct on one assumption however; I do oppose abortion, but for the same reason I oppose the death penalty and the war in Iraq: No one has the right to take another life UNLESS it's in self defense. I believe that if one disagrees with a law, write another law to overturn it. Let the voters decide if they wish to overturn Prop 8, or Roe v. Wade or what have you. Roudy marches, public insurrection and violence is counter-productive and hurts the cause you're "fighting" for. My whole point has been that the voters should decide for themselves and please give the populace at large some credit; Ultimately, people will make the right decision provided you don't try to force one upon them.
For the record, there is lots to do in Sacramento! We have beautiful parks, 2 awesome rivers, K st mall, and a world class selection of books at many different libraries (as i am an avid reader!)
-
-
-
-
Posted By: thark ME @ 11/15/2008 9:49:01 PM
Your diatribe actually fits the description of a whiny tantrum than anything else posted here. If you had a good point at all, you could have accomplished it in a few short, well contructed sentence. This literary mess is more akin to a rant. So childish.
-
Posted By: MDH SacramentoCA @ 11/15/2008 10:07:54 PM
"A few short, well contructed sentence"? At least I can spell and use the English language properly! I'm not the poster with the "literary mess"! At least you spelled egregious properly.
-
Posted By: MDH SacramentoCA @ 11/15/2008 10:28:47 PM
Besides, if I am "ranting", so what?
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Dropping By @ 11/15/2008 2:57:23 PM
Really, a hard-fought election doesn't mean that the people have spoken? It's "truer" to say that money talks? If this is so, I look forward to your column about how Barack Obama bought the presidency and his election is illegitimate -- since he vastly outraised and outspent John McCain.
-
Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/20/2008 9:44:45 PM
You do not put human rights up to a vote.
-
Posted By: thark ME @ 11/15/2008 9:42:13 PM
Except no one's Constitutional Rights are taken ever away when one votes for President (well, not anymore, thanks to all those voters' right laws that were invoked by activist Judges back in the 60's)
You're just enjoying your dance on the grave of a minorities Constitutional rights...But beware; The Lady Quindlen is quite right that your dance is just about done; it's only a matter of time until folks realize that no one has rights until everyone has rights. Otherwise, who knows? Next time, th electorate might be coming after YOU.-
Posted By: yeson8forCA @ 11/16/2008 2:23:12 AM
FAITHFUL HARP I loved the way you stated your view you are DOPE!!! And now to the gay community and proponents of Gay marriage Please stop using Loving VS. VA as well as the struggle of African Americans in this country to prop 8 it hold no merit. LOVING VS.VIRGINA still holds no merit as to way the ban should be over turned.You stated that in 1967 the Supreme Court struck down a law basically stating that a Black WOMAN who wanted to marry a white MAN was unconstitutional based on the fact that "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man," because it is "FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR VERY EXISTENCE AND SURVIVAL "
Well, how is gay marriage "FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR EXISTENCE AND SURVIVAL"? it seems to me that the Supreme Court felt that Marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN regardless of RACE was "FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR VERY EXISTENCE AND SURVIVAL " not marriage of two people of the same sex who cannot huh say uh... breed,multiply, reproduce, give birth to" the human race. Being able reproduce the HUMAN RACE is "FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR VERY EXISTENCE AND SURVIVAL"
well in 2008 Prop 8 was put to the MAJORITY of the people and the MAJORITY of the people voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman because in CA we still believe that "Marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN regardless of race is "FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR VERY EXISTENCE AND SURVIVAL"
And to the gay community that thinks BLACK is the new gay ( I live in CA and it was on a sign at a no on 8 protest today)...uh yeah noooo. That's very insulting--
Posted By: rbz3456 @ 11/18/2008 9:28:14 AM
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.
-
-
-
Posted By: MDH SacramentoCA @ 11/15/2008 9:59:11 PM
DroppingBy: Good point! I guess money does determine an election, as only 52% of Americans voted for Obama, I guess the other 48% should have spent more!! Oh well, there is one good thing about the lefties taking over -when this country continues its slow slide into hell over the next 4 years, everyone will have only ONE party to blame! Attention "48-percenters" out there: get ready for 2010!!
-
Posted By: Wild Clover @ 11/16/2008 4:38:25 AM
Nope, can't just blame one party for not being able to fix the mess the other has had years tomake in only four. The slow trainwreck which the republican majority inflicted on us had the momentum of an avalance and it is going to take years to dig us out of the rubble. George Bush blamed every problem of his first term on Bill Clinton, whether it was accurate or not. I'm praying for the country to be recovered by the time my 9 year old hits adulthood, but I'm not real hopeful.
You folks screwed up, you folks knew it-look at the pitiful candidates you feilded for Pres! Bring in Palin to seal the loss, voila! the Demcrats have to clean up the mess.
-
-
Posted By: FRMR IRS AGENT @ 11/15/2008 9:45:23 PM
THE ELECTION IS OVER. LIVE WITH IT. GO ON WITH YOUR LIFE. ACCEPT THAT YOUR 'OLD' MAN LOST AND THE 'PIT BULL WITH LIPSTICK' HAS RETURNED TO ALASKA AND JOE THE PLUMBER IS TRYING TO SELL HIS BOOK.
AS FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, WHY IS IT A PROBLEM WITH YOU? AND DON'T GIVE ME ANY OF YOUR BIBLE B.S. YOU ARE A BIGOT! ACCEPT IT. WEAR IT PROUDLY ON YOUR BACK..-
Posted By: Farlessthanever @ 11/16/2008 12:31:09 AM
FRMR IRS AGENT - to tell you the truth you appear to be the most intolerant person on the board...accept it...wear it proudly on your back....
-
-
-
Posted By: kmac426 @ 11/20/2008 12:28:48 PM
I find comparing inter-racial marriage and gay marriage in the same context is rediculous. At that time inter-racial marriage was not accepted, that is true, but it didnt mean that it wasn't right. Marriage union has always been between a man and a woman, not accepting inter-racial marriage is and was bigotry. However in the terms of gay marriage you have something that destroy the definition of marriage as we know it, since the beginning of time. I don't feel that God is thinking, "Why does all the worst stuff get done in my name." He is thinking that his people are standing up for biblical values and I believe he is happy with that. No where in the bible will you find that the marriage union was not to include inter-racial couples but you will find that marriage is defined as a union between man and woman.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 12:51:11 PM
Too bad the USA isn't run based on the bible, but on the constitution.
-
Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/20/2008 9:23:15 PM
Jonathan loved David with a love "surpassing the love of women." And when God knits two hearts together, "Do not call unclean that which God has called holy."
-
-
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
- I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have to say. Holder on terror trialsREUT
- The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist. Sarah Palin on the magazine coverCSM
Discuss