Ms Quindlen is disingenuous in comparing Loving v Virginia and same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional, the Court never adjudicated marriage nor its definition, as the Lovings fullfilled the requirement by being two people, a man and a woman. As defined in Black's Law Dictionary, marriage is a legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. In addition, Ms Quindlen suggests that the courts will rule in favor of same-sex marriage, but fails to point out the rulings in Hawaii, New York And Washington that were against same-sex marriage.
In reply to some comments that I have read, marriage was first redefined by the Supreme Judicial Court of MA in 2003 by a vote of 4-3, not in the Loving case. Also, The LGBT community represents app. 4.5% of the population, not 10 or 13%. The 4,5% figure was used by the LGBT groups who filed amicus curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v Texas. The Hunter College study, sponsored by HRC, showed a lower %.
The Loving Decision
-
Posted By: celtic church @ 11/20/2008 7:38:43 PM
-
Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/20/2008 9:15:22 PM
She's not disingenuous at all. She's talking about justice.
-
-
Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/20/2008 9:11:28 PM
Ms. Quindlen, AMEN!! "The arc is long, but it tends toward justice." --MLK
-
Posted By: buckbuckbuck @ 11/20/2008 7:59:41 PM
You ???Yes on 8??? people either miss the point or haven???t done your research. It is not that gays want to get married for the sake of getting married. There are benefits to a marriage as you well know. Let me give you a little lesson. My wife has a pension. We have been together for 20 years. If she was to pass away tomorrow, in your little bigoted America we currently live in, I would get none of that pension. Now a husband or wife in a hetero relationship would have full access to that pension. I have 2 adopted sons. If I was to die those boys would have to go to another willing relative or be put back into the foster system. My wife, a caregiver since they were very young, would have to go through the adoption process (and pay the agency a second time) to adopt them into her life. Oh and by the way, if my wife did pass away those 2 boys would not have access to her pension either. And just like a pension neither of us has access to the other???s Social Security so if I was to die my slightly larger SS check would not go to her. Finally, if something were to happen to my wife there is NO guarantee that the hospital she lands in would give me access and rights to make decisions about her care and well being. In fact, her wing nut of a sister could take control of her and shut me and my family completely out of her care.
So you tell me the fight for marriage is about getting married in your little churches. You tell me marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. (Not in my Bible it hasn???t or are you just forgetting that many of the Biblical patriarchs had multiple wives.) You tell me the fight for gay marriage is about ???family values???. And you tell me the fight for gay marriage is about deciding if we chose to be gay or not. (What idiot thinks we chose discrimination, violence and intolerance?) You are WRONG!! The fight for gay marriage is about a loving, committed gay couple having the same rights as a loving committed hetero couple. There are gay people living in your world and they are not going away. Get over it! (Which is probably what Anna should have said at the end of her article.)
-
Posted By: Mark 5050 @ 11/19/2008 6:04:56 AM
We have declared as a society that it is OK to be gay. nuff said.
-
Posted By: SkipJack @ 11/19/2008 1:13:01 PM
Enter Your Comment No we didn't as a society say it's all right. Let the homosexuals and lesbians go live their lives and get off my TV with their angry faces. They are trying to force their lifestyles on the rest of the majority of American people. Get a clue here, marriage is defined as a reite between and man and a woman. The people of California have spoken and I believe we still have democracy in this country.
-
Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/20/2008 2:42:39 PM
If you don't like what is on your tv, change the channel.
-
Posted By: thetallestpaul @ 11/19/2008 1:17:19 PM
They have never tried to force their lifestyle on you. You are trying to force your lifestyle on them.
-
Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 3:57:59 PM
Explain how I am forcing my lifestyle on homosexual couples by voting against having the government grant them new and special privileges? I did not vote to criminalize their relationships, I only voted to have the government refrain from endorsing and promoting those relationships.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 5:28:02 PM
Are you suggesting marriage is an endorsement? Why?
-
-
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 1:22:55 PM
"The people of California have spoken and I believe we still have democracy in this country."
Sure we do. But we also have a constitution...and that constitution does not allow you to vote other citizens out of their rights. -
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 1:21:47 PM
"Let the homosexuals and lesbians go live their lives and get off my TV with their angry faces."
They are trying to live their lives...and the bigots are stopping them. Stop trying to take away their rights, or get used to their angry faces.
-
-
-
Posted By: TomK @ 11/19/2008 5:30:51 PM
Nobody is asking for the right to have more than one spouse or to engage in incest or to marry an animal. These kind of bizarre claims are more examples of the lies and hysteria the right spreads to stop gay marriage. It is similar to the deceitful claims put forth by pundits and politicians like Sarah Palin who spread rumors that Barack Obama is a Socialist and un-American. Their lies didn't work against President-Elect Obama and their lies will eventually fail against gay marriage as well. This country was founded on the principle that all men [and women] are created equal and have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
-
Posted By: Explain that one @ 11/19/2008 6:51:34 PM
Got it.
Everyone opposed to your position is liar and anti-American.-
Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/20/2008 2:37:27 PM
or anti-American either lol
-
Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/20/2008 2:36:05 PM
You don't get to decide who is un-American.
-
-
-
Posted By: Go Sarah! @ 11/19/2008 1:06:33 AM
Confucius said that society would never be functional until we "rectified the names." I suggest we do some rectifying.
1) Narriage. Let's define narriage as that form of heterosexual marriage that makes woman a slave, such as when 8 year old Yemeni girls are married to men old enough to be their grandfathers. And let's agree we do not support narriage, no matter if it is "traditional."
2) Ormarriage. Let's define ormarriage as that original ideal of heterosexual marriage, in which the two halves of humanity pledge to work in a one-on-one equal partnership here on earth, which usually (but not always) includes reproduction, as well.
3) Marriage. Let's define marriage as whatever the heck the state wants to call the assignments of benefits between two or more people of whatever sex or sexual orientation.
If we make this rectification of names, maybe we can bring some rationality to this discourse. Narriage should be opposed by all, including governmental and religious organizations. Marriage is just a governmentally defined status, with whatever meaning persons want it to have. Ormarriage will be the ideal held up by religious persons who believe that there is a huge difference between a governmentally defined status and a truly meaningful and equal partnership between the two halves of the human family. A Mormon would then get married by the state and ormarried by the Mormon Church. Sermons will be given over the pulpits in the LDS Church extolling the importance of ormarriage, and how it has special meaning that sets it apart from marriage. In this way, both sides get what they want, and get to teach their children what they believe is the true path to happiness.
I am heartened that African-Americans, who are the experts on what discrimination is and is not, voted overwhelmingly to support Prop 8. There is great wisdom in their judgement, and I defer to it. Furthermore, Barack Obama is also opposed to gay marriage. There is great wisdom in his judgement, and I defer to it.-
Posted By: thetallestpaul @ 11/19/2008 10:56:45 AM
All I'm saying is that if you think God disagrees with homosexuality then you must almost certainly have to assume that God does not want anyone to eat shellfish. Logical? No. Dogmatic? Yes.
Also African-Americans are demographically more conservative on this issue. They are not demographically more wise. It is not some great wisdom it is only the manifestation of cultural attitudes.
Also confucius mostly agreed with keeping women as inferior. Not that it really pertains to your argument.-
Posted By: That Dude @ 11/20/2008 3:25:18 AM
If you are of the Judeo-Christian line of religion, then you most certainly should believe that God is against homosexuality. He destroyed Sodom and Gomhorra mainly because of it. In Moses' time, homosexuals were stoned to death for practicing it. The Apostle Paul spoke about it, and guess what, he was against it.
-
Posted By: JerryinCincinnati @ 11/20/2008 12:31:20 PM
Your choices in biblical examples are interesting in that you choose very selectively. Many biblical scholars disagree that Sodom and Gomorrah (note spelling) was destroyed because of homosexuality. Instead, some believe it was destroyed because it was a closed society that did not welcome God's angels and it was destroyed because of its inhospitable treatment of God's messengers. It's interesting that you mention Sodom and Gomorrah because if you read the entire passage you will see that Lot first offered his daughters as chattel to be raped by the town's men, and after Sodom and his wife were destroyed, Lot went into the wilderness where he had drunken incest with his daughters in order to repopulate. It's interesting that people rarely, if ever, mention anything about the incestuous sex Lot had with his daughters after leaving Sodom and Gomorrha or the way in which he treated women to be offered as chattel to be raped -- as though those behaviors are perfectly fine and acceptable. Instead, people focus on one small passage that many believe had nothing to do with homosexuality but instead with a brutal mob of men who wanted to punish Lot and God's angels by demeaning and punishing them in what they considered the worst way -- rape. As for Paul, he also preached against allowing women to be leaders (even teachers) in the church yet today we have women ministers and Sunday school teachers. The bible speaks for and against many things including advocating slavery and also prohibiting the taking/charging of interest in financial matters, but today we outlaw slavery and allow people and banks to charge interest on loans. It's interesting that many don't ever mention those issues that are discussed more often and in greater detail than "homosexuality" in the bible. It's cafeteria style Christianity that is hypocritical on its face, which is why we cannot make civil rights decisions based on religion when our Constitution specifically prohibits the declaration of state religion.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: proud2bgay @ 11/16/2008 2:41:51 AM
Sounds like someone below can't stand the thought that he might be on the wrong side of equality, even though he may be black. Be black and be proud, don't take it as an insult. And by the way, it's "Gay is the new Black".
-
Posted By: neeka @ 11/19/2008 10:41:45 PM
You aren't black, otherwise you wouldn't be such a fool and say "Gay is the new Black". Gay people are just plain ridiculous when they compare their issue with what black people had to struggle with for over 200 years. When you have to work in the fields without pay for over 200 years, be ripped from your family and judged in the Supreme Court as 3/5ths human then start making the parallels.
-
Posted By: JerryinCincinnati @ 11/20/2008 10:56:10 AM
As a society, I don't think we will get anywhere in addressing this issue if we try to imply that any one group's discrimination is worse than other. No two oppressed groups' experiences will ever be exactly the same, although they all typically bear the similarity of injustice and bigotry against people/groups for illogical reasons. The experience of the Jews is not the same as African-Americans, which is not the same as GLBT people. Yet, I feel compelled to point out that gays and lesbians were imprisoned, tortured and killed in Nazi concentration camps specifically because of their professed or perceived sexual orientation. None of us is truly free unless we are all free, and I believe it was Martin Luther King Jr. who said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
-
-
Posted By: yeson8forCA @ 11/16/2008 3:05:30 AM
Wow it seems that the best you can come up with to opose what I said was a typo that I written-yeah can't come up with much more huh? didn't think so- and I'm sure your not African American because you would have understand me ( yeah 70% of voted to Ban gay marriage so there are few who would think to compare being gay to being black- Once again it's a INSULT-
It's obvious that I am proud to be a African American woman in this country If I wasn't do you think that I would care when gays confuse their "lifestyle with my RACE???- and I am on the side of HUMAN LIFE and true marriage-
I forgot I'm trying to get a confused gay person to try to understand the difference between being a RACE of people to being a lifestyle...you can't simply understand the human anatomy and the difference between a man and a woman so why would I expect you to understand anything else logical???-
Posted By: neeka @ 11/19/2008 10:54:53 PM
That's right! If not for the black and Latino vote, Prop 8 would not have passed. But it did, so deal with it, y'all.
-
Posted By: ejackson21st @ 11/16/2008 10:06:02 PM
Excuse me Ms. proud African American woman but I am a proud Black Man (formerly called a Negro until I struggled to be recognized differently). I was kicked out of a white state university for wearing an "Afro". I marched, I organized I sat-in and I was arrested. I couldn't legally marry outside of my race when I was 20 years old. After that, I could but I darn well knew I had better not if I wanted my house not to be burned down.
I married a proud Black woman and we had a proud Black daughter. My daughter spent this weekend on the streets of downtown Los Angeles fighting for her right to legally marry. Today I feel like all that I struggled for in the name of human rights and equality was just a transient moment.
I cried seeing my daughter having to go out begging for her right to marry the person she loves. You disappoint me more than you ever know with your rant about "true marriage" and "human anatomy". I've heard it all before in terms of "pure race" and "inferior people".
You're probably fat too. What if there was a Proposition on the ballot to ban marriages between two fat people? You know what, I'd fight against such a ballot because it is as ignorant and prejudiced as the one that as of last week is trying to take my daughter's marriage away from her because she loves a proud Black intelligent loving giving honest woman (someone very unlike yourself!)
I would do that for you because you shouldn't be singled out for being fat and told you don't have consitutional rights to marry. And if you think that being gay is a "lifestyle" and that laws should be passed to deny them their equal protected rights then why should I want to protect the rights of fat people? Because it's the right thing to do!! And who knows, if you aren't fat now, you may be one day, and no one should come knocking at your door tearing up your marriage license.
It's not all about you and your narrow rigid beliefs. There is a whole world of good people out here that deserve better no matter how unworthy they may be in your self-righteous opinion. I still have a good "march" in me and next time I'll be right beside my daughter in front of City Hall and I'll be calling out for her equal rights...now!
-
-
-
Posted By: Explain that one @ 11/18/2008 1:13:19 PM
You can't "spin forward." When you spin it just get's you back to where you were.
And, despite all of their best efforts at spinning, gay marriage will not make gay sex normal.
I look forward to the day when there is a drug or therapy that treats a malfunctioning sex drive. Something developed for pedophiles and rapists that also works on the confusion in the gay mind.-
Posted By: ChaosRain @ 11/18/2008 6:57:09 PM
You are getting spinning mixed up with running in circles. In fact, there is a law of physics stating that spinning things go farther, straighter, and faster than non-spinning things. It's why you spin a football when you throw it.
And it is offensive to say that being gay is some sickness that could be cured. That would be like saying skin color is something that can be cured by a medicine.-
Posted By: Explain that one @ 11/18/2008 8:29:49 PM
Let's see what Darwin says about your comment.
Variations in skin color generally do not limit the ability of a species to survive and reproduce.
Homosexuality, however, does appear to negatively affect the survival of the species, as it would reduce the reproduction rate of a population.
So Darwin would think that your comment is in error. Darwin would probably also say that homosexuality is a trait that is not natural.-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 9:19:17 AM
"Variations in skin color generally do not limit the ability of a species to survive and reproduce."
Okay, are you arguing that:
1. Gays are reproducing now, or
2. If gay marriage is legalized, that everyone will suddenly turn gay, and the species will die out, or
3. Only people who can reproduce should be allowed to marry? Should we annul marriages if one spouse is found to be sterile?-
Posted By: Explain that one @ 11/19/2008 10:17:59 AM
I am saying that nature, as described by Darwin, would likely find homosexuality to be abnormal as it limits the reproduction rate of a population. Are you disagreeing with that point, or just too stubborn to acknowledge it?
Look at that, I gave you a reason why homosexuality is abnormal (i.e., wrong) without even mentioning God.
I don't see where your questions relate to my comment.-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 11:22:20 AM
"I am saying that nature, as described by Darwin, would likely find homosexuality to be abnormal as it limits the reproduction rate of a population. Are you disagreeing with that point, or just too stubborn to acknowledge it?"
Okay. What's that got to do with marriage?-
Posted By: JerryinCincinnati @ 11/20/2008 10:46:17 AM
Because homosexuality has always existed in nature both among animals and humans (even in biblical times if you believe in the bible), then it should go without saying that it is part of nature and always will be. Try as some may, homosexuality will never be eliminated from society. The great majority of GLBT people are created and reared by heterosexual parents as will likely always be the case. And thus, homosexuality is as natural as any heterosexual state of being.
-
-
Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/20/2008 12:27:21 AM
"abnormal"
Adjective
---differing from the usual or typical
Funny, none of the definitions I found said anything about wrongfulness...just difference.
Darwin would also be the first to point out that sex isn't always used for pro-creation in many species. Animals masturbate and display homosexual tendencies, both sexual and non-sexual. So, really, you have no argument there, either. -
Posted By: valark @ 11/19/2008 1:53:03 PM
You are incredibly ignorant if you interchange the term "abnormal" with "wrong", even more so in a pseudo-scientific correlation.
-
-
-
Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/20/2008 12:33:08 AM
"Darwin would probably say"
---It's nice to know that you can use quotes out of context AND still manage to project your own views on to what a long-dead naturalist might have said....
-
-
-
-
Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 12:23:41 PM
If I am a bisexual, do I have a fundamental right under the constitution to marry one man and one woman?Please explain why I do not have such a right.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 12:27:32 PM
For the same reason a heterosexual who wants to marry two women he loves is not allowed to.
-
Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 3:55:17 PM
And what reason is that? I don't think you want to use the "marriage has always been between two people" argument, do you?
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 4:13:10 PM
"And what reason is that? I don't think you want to use the "marriage has always been between two people" argument, do you?"
Because polygamy is illegal. Now ask me if it should be illegal.-
Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 5:12:12 PM
Gee Doc, do you think polygamy should be illegal?
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 8:38:51 AM
No, provided everyone involved is both a consenting adult, and aware of the situation.
-
-
Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 4:52:56 PM
Gee doc, do you think polygamy should be illegal?
-
-
-
-
Posted By: thetallestpaul @ 11/19/2008 1:14:45 PM
Defending that possibility is not a popular idea even for bisexuals. Stop muddling the issue.
-
Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 3:56:15 PM
It's not popular? Is that the only response you can come up with? Somehow I don't think that will fly.
-
-
Posted By: Explain that one @ 11/19/2008 2:42:16 PM
Expanding the definition of marriage would recognize a polygamy right, or lead us to it in short order. All for what? To give a "marriage" label to a group? If it is the marriage rights that they are truly after, then those rights can be achieved though other means without the label. It is the label that is driving the opposition.
But it isn't the rights. The homosexuals want to have the marriage label because they want to continue with the fantasy that they are normal. But they are not normal. They are abnormal. They can never be normal until they fix their defect.
Note that the people responding to your post fail to address this. They will instead try to dismiss any issue they can't respond to, or attack the person raising the issue. Quite pathetic. But they are defective, after all.-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 3:15:58 PM
"But it isn't the rights. The homosexuals want to have the marriage label because they want to continue with the fantasy that they are normal. But they are not normal. They are abnormal. They can never be normal until they fix their defect."
You're a funny little bigot.
-
-
-
Posted By: Explain that one @ 11/18/2008 1:06:17 PM
Gay marriage will result in polygamy.
How? This is because a bisexual can only live their lifestyle, in a marriage, if they marry two people at the same time.
Or do the gays want to exclude bisexuals from gay marriage?-
Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/18/2008 1:36:10 PM
Your logic is senseless. People of all sexual orientations are often attracted to more than one person at any given time. That does not mean that can marry more than one person at a time.
-
Posted By: Explain that one @ 11/18/2008 1:51:39 PM
I'm sorry but your logic is faulty. What does attraction have to do with this?
Are you proposing that bisexuals be prohibited from marrying the people that they love?-
Posted By: thetallestpaul @ 11/18/2008 5:01:44 PM
bisexuals are attracted to both men and women the same way you might be attracted to both black people and white people. it doesn't mean you have to love one of each at the same time.
your logic is like the most wrong thing posted on this entire comment thread-
Posted By: Explain that one @ 11/18/2008 6:25:34 PM
As a bisexual, I can be in love with a man and a woman.
I want to be married in a way that is consistent with my lifestyle. Can I marry both of my loves, or must I choose just one and be forced to live in a heterosexual marriage or in a homosexual marriage?
Tell me why I can't be in a bisexual marriage. Why must one of my loves be denied all of the marriage rights held by the other?
Do bisexuals have less rights than the homosexual?-
Posted By: thetallestpaul @ 11/18/2008 7:19:10 PM
You sir are a fool. Bisexuals don't wish to date two people at the same time, they just happen to be attracted to people of both genders. I honestly cannot believe you are foolish enough to even consider making this argument.
-
Posted By: Explain that one @ 11/18/2008 7:29:10 PM
Now you speak for all bisexuals? What a delusional creature you are.
And your evasion of the matter is quite pathetic. Standard practice for your type. Attack the person and not the issue when the issue is too tough.
The point of your post was to call me a fool? You have proven yourself the fool.-
Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/18/2008 7:51:12 PM
Ok, I'll speak for bisexuals. Bisexauls are attracted to both sexes, not necessarily at the same time. It would be like saying because you are hetero that you would want to marry 2 women or 2 men at the same time.
The issue is not that tough. It is about denying someone a basic right depending on their sexuality. People who oppose same sex marriage are the ones trying to muddy the issue.
You can continue to speak for the fools.-
Posted By: Explain that one @ 11/18/2008 8:31:31 PM
I'll speak for the bisexuals too, just like Blue in AZ.
Some bisexuals want to be in a relationship with two people at the same time, and in love with both at the same time. That is consistent with your comment "not necessarily at the same time", which acknowledges that some bisexuals want to satisfy both attractions simultaneously. Or are you telling us that this is prohibited?
And, tell me, why can they not have that happiness? Why can't they have a bisexual marriage?
And thanks for the pathetic personal attack, which just further demonstrates that your personality is as shallow as your logic.-
Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/19/2008 10:14:05 AM
"The point of your post was to call me a fool? You have proven yourself the fool."
---I think we've already demonstrated who started the name-calling. It's right up there. You may want to re-read your own posts before you start getting nasty.
Are you bi-sexual? Because if you are not, we don't want you speaking for us. If you are, feel free to come on out right now. Until then, don't claim you know anything about "the lifestyle".-
Posted By: Explain that one @ 11/19/2008 10:22:43 AM
What is the point of your post? Why even waste the time typing it?
And more personal attacks? You again prove your failings to the world.-
Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/19/2008 10:33:26 AM
"And more personal attacks? You again prove your failings to the world."
---Is there a shred of irony to your post? Or are you too blind to see where you are being hypocritical here?
And quit trying to avoid my question. Are you bi-sexual?-
Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/20/2008 12:17:21 AM
Still waiting for some explaining....I've noticed that you've responded to other posts, but not my simple little question. So, since you know SO much about bisexuality and obviously feel capable of representing us all, are you bi?
Enlighten us on how you got so educated on the subject, oh non-pathetic one.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: thetallestpaul @ 11/19/2008 10:48:41 AM
They cannot have that for the same reason that polygamy should be illegal everywhere. Because people are generally incapable of maintaining a healthy relationship with more than one person. There is social science that studies this that is readily available.
Nothing however logically mandates that two consenting adults should not be allowed to engage in a healthy relationship. Also the number of bisexual persons who wish to engage in this sort of absurd situation you are proposing is definitely extremely small compared to the number of normal bisexuals. It would be like finding a straight man who requires to be married to a brunette and a blonde at the exact same time. I happen to be attracted to both brunettes and blondes therefore I need polygamy to be happy? No!
-
-
-
Posted By: thetallestpaul @ 11/18/2008 7:33:44 PM
No that was a side comment clearly. Although technically you are also now avoiding the issue, way to go. I know many many many bisexuals, I have worked extensively in musical theatre which has long been a safe haven for people like that because they get attacked verbally many other places. I also live in very liberal district of Columbus Ohio which has a very large lbgt community. And while I do not speak for all bisexuals (people are people, there are bound to be some bad apples) they for the most part engage in relationships that involve themselves and one other person, or they are single. (Hey thats a lot like straight people! WOW)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 3:13:03 PM
"Gay marriage will result in polygamy."
By your logic, nobody can be married, because they might be attracted to more than one person.
-
-
Posted By: whkeller @ 11/18/2008 7:47:26 AM
It's odd that you consider our country "moving forward" when the people's will is subverted by judges. Gay "marriage" happened is Massachuetts because of a single, solitary judge's vote. Not because it is accepted by the residents of Massachuets. This is not moving forward, this is the tyranny of the courts.
-
Posted By: Wild Clover @ 11/19/2008 11:21:14 PM
Heterosexuals "right to marry" came originally from their church. Presently gays and lsbians can and do marry in many churches. The legal status of theat right is something that was granted to couples when the first judge decided that a marrige licence(or simly living as husband and wife) granted the spouses and children certain rights. As time went on, these rights were codified in the law to allow for equal treatment under the law. In essence, the rights and responsibilities enjoyed by heterosexuals were granted centuries back by the "judicial activists" of the time. Judges have ruled it a fundamental right, see both Loving and the cases of felons in solitary permitted to marry. Essentially it is such a fundamental right that judges have decided that forbidding it on superficial characteristics which neither harm the state, society, the spouses or their issue, that the fellow in solitary confinement can not be prevented from marrying over a phone line, though the state can deny the right to conjugal visits. Sounds like sex-which is what keeps cropping up in discussions of gay marriage, is not a right, but binding your fate for life to someone of age who consents is. I don't see that gayness as a condition to forbid marriage promotes the states' interest, therefore it should not be denied as a legal right. Add in freedom of religion...if I marry in a church which performs same sex marriages, the state has the obligation to recognize my union. The Catholic church did not recognize my father's marriage to my mother-he had divorced-yet the state did. Same difference. Forget the plumbing-the felon in solitary proves the right to marry has nothing to do with sex, as does the recognition of marriage between octagenarians or the physically deformed/disabled. The "will of the people" and the effect of their voting by emotion or ignorance was precisely why the founders made this a republic, with a judiciary to find all those rights NOT enumerated in the Constitution, and to ensure that minority opinions were not cast by the wayside.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 8:44:10 AM
"It's odd that you consider our country "moving forward" when the people's will is subverted by judges. "
Their job is to interpret the constitution, and the laws. When they deem a law unconstitutional, out it goes. Your ballot is a powerful thing, but not powerful enough to subvert the constitution.
-
-
Posted By: JoanR @ 11/18/2008 9:41:37 AM
You may have noticed that the box score of ballot initiatives is: marriage 30 gay marriage 0.This encompasses red states, blue states and purple states. What is inevitable is not gay marriage but a constitutional amendment that will settle this permanently
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 10:25:19 AM
Good luck with that. In all of American history, only one (1) amendment has ever been passed to limit the rights of individuals...prohibition.
Look how well that worked.-
Posted By: JoanR @ 11/18/2008 3:05:14 PM
There is no "right" for gays to marry except to the extent that it has been imposed on the public by liberal judges promoting a minority social agenda. Your point is thus entirely specious.The essence of republicanism is the right of the people to govern themselves and not be subject to the whims of individuals, judges or otherwise and hence, to paraphrase one of your folk heroes, Gavin Newsome, get used to it because it is coming.
-
Posted By: Wild Clover @ 11/19/2008 11:18:57 PM
Heterosexuals "right to marry" came originally from their church. Presently gays and lsbians can and do marry in many churches. The legal status of theat right is something that was granted to couples when the first judge decided that a marrige licence(or simly living as husband and wife) granted the spouses and children certain rights. As time went on, these rights were codified in the law to allow for equal treatment under the law. In essence, the rights and responsibilities enjoyed by heterosexuals were granted centuries back by the "judicial activists" of the time. Judges have ruled it a fundamental right, see both Loving and the cases of felons in solitary permitted to marry. Essentially it is such a fundamental right that judges have decided that forbidding it on superficial characteristics which neither harm the state, society, the spouses or their issue, that the fellow in solitary confinement can not be prevented from marrying over a phone line, though the state can deny the right to conjugal visits. Sounds like sex-which is what keeps cropping up in discussions of gay marriage, is not a right, but binding your fate for life to someone of age who consents is. I don't see that gayness as a condition to forbid marriage promotes the states' interest, therefore it should not be denied as a legal right. Add in freedom of religion...if I marry in a church which performs same sex marriages, the state has the obligation to recognize my union. The Catholic church did not recognize my father's marriage to my mother-he had divorced-yet the state did. Same difference. Forget the plumbing-the felon in solitary proves the right to marry has nothing to do with sex, as does the recognition of marriage between octagenarians or the physically deformed/disabled. The "will of the people" and the effect of their voting by emotion or ignorance was precisely why the founders made this a republic, with a judiciary to find all those rights NOT enumerated in the Constitution, and to ensure that minority opinions were not cast by the wayside.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 3:20:49 PM
"The essence of republicanism is the right of the people to govern themselves and not be subject to the whims of individuals,"
Like you're doing to the gays? -
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 3:20:15 PM
" There is no "right" for gays to marry except to the extent that it has been imposed on the public by liberal judges promoting a minority social agenda. "
Rubbish. It is covered by amendments IX and XIV. Google up "equal protection under law". Or maybe just READ the constitution once, eh?
-
-
-
-
Posted By: marlin24 @ 11/16/2008 4:29:48 AM
why do people care about something 2 other people do that only involves those 2 people, especially when it is love? i really really don't understand why, when something is out of love, another person would want to prohibit that. i can only assume that people against gay marriage are not bright, not very well educated, and unable to think enough for themselves that they need or want a god to tell them how to think. *sadly shakes head*
-
Posted By: neeka @ 11/19/2008 11:04:16 PM
You are either naive or stupid to assume this only involves those 2 people. When gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts it also required the Catholic church to allow same sex adoption. The church refused and and Boston Catholic Charities had to shut down because they refused. It will indeed affect many other people.
-
-
Posted By: GTraynor @ 11/16/2008 3:00:09 AM
Jesus will damm all these heathen to hell for their sins. They are wicked and part of the devil's work. They will want to try and procreate with animals next...
Repent! Ask Jesus for forgiveness! End your wickedom!-
Posted By: SarahMills @ 11/17/2008 12:17:06 PM
Didn't Jesus preach LOVE, not hate? And since when did He start damning people to Hell? Which Bible are you reading? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." AHEM???
-
Posted By: neeka @ 11/19/2008 10:58:06 PM
Jesus had no problem stating some people would get eternal punishment. No problem at all.
-
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 12:49:31 PM
"Wickedom"?
-
Posted By: prajahn @ 11/16/2008 3:57:25 AM
Jesus will damn the churches who hired those ruthless script writers who were charged to whip up the fears and hatred of the so called "faithful", and create ads filled with misinformation, in which an innocent little girl was repeatedly pimped into performing for their cameras; all in honor of the advancement of a compaign of targeted persecution (and speaking of "The Persecuted" you just might want to pause a moment here and check what Jesus said about who was "blessed" and who wasn't, in the context that he says he saw it...The Pharissees hated the message about as much as you're going to). That little girl's parents or guardians likely made a little money off pimping out their little girl too, considering the amount of money that had to be imported into California in order to pay for it all. Did the parents and the culprit churches ever ponder what that little girl will have to face in the public, or when she has to face her classmates? Of course not. The only children these people truly --no, psychotically--care about are the ones who haven't been born yet. Cut to Kansas where untold numbers of children are now oficially deprived of Gay parents who would have clearly understood what it was like to deal with parental rejection and the art of self-love and self respect in spite of the cruelty they have come to witness in the world. Indeed: repent, Pharissee. Ask Jesus for forgiveness. End your wickedom!
-
-
Posted By: Mtom @ 11/19/2008 5:19:01 PM
Re. "The Loving Decision,' I am a liberal like you, and your Last Word re. same sex marriage sounds very noble, as it appeals to equal rights, but I hate to see it based on a logical fallacy. The issue is not equal rights (gays and lesbians have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as everyone else), but of changing the meaning of marriage. Your q;uote the Supreme Court's decree that "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man," and it is, but you conveniently ignore the fact that the court's definition of marriage in thier opinion was that between a man and a woman! If gays and lesbians complain that their civil rights are being violated, why could not polygamists, incestors, and child marriage advocates make the same argument, and where do you draw the line? I know you can do beter in presenting a more logical argument.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 5:24:23 PM
" why could not polygamists, incestors, and child marriage advocates make the same argument, and where do you draw the line?"
You draw the line at "consenting adults", of course. I'd also argue against incest, as the harm done is to potential offspring, which would most likely become republicans.-
Posted By: TomK @ 11/19/2008 6:26:10 PM
Is that why the Republicans are against abortion even in cases of incest?
-
-
-
Posted By: tyvigh @ 11/18/2008 2:58:42 PM
The Mormon chruch's support of prop 8 is completly hipocritical. While other churches also supported prop 8 the LDS churches support bothers me most. This is a religion that practiced poligamy and argued before the supreme court that they had the religious right to define marriage in their own way. Even though the have stopped practicing poligamy (on earth) they still believe that it exists in heaven and if a mans wife dies he can be "sealed" to a second, third etc wife. All these women will be his wives in heaven. How a Mormon could justify having these beliefs and deny same sex couples the right to marry is so hippocritical. I think the Mormon church is afraid that if gay marrige is leagal it will become socially acceptable, and eventually they will be in a position where their doctrine looks bigoted. They have been through this once when they had to give the priesthood to blacks. You would think they would wise up this time and not fight on the loosing side until their back is against the wall.
-
Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 5:35:20 PM
You are huge idiot. When the Mormons practiced polygamy more than one hundred years ago, all they wanted from the government was to be left alone. They did not ask the government or the citizenry to sanction and approve their polygamous relationships. Also, they ultimately accepted the law of the land and refrained from engagining in polygamous relationships.
-
-
Posted By: davewins @ 11/18/2008 3:11:21 PM
Any time one group seeks to impose its version of religious-based morality on the society as a whole, we move one step farther away from the ideal America was founded upon. I fail to see how two people's commitment to each other should affect anyone else. I sincerely hope this goes to the supreme court after Obama has a chance to shore up some more liberals so we can "undo" the damage done by socially conservative individuals. I completely agree with the writer that a victory is 100 % inevitable, it is only a matter of time. In 50 years we will look back in astonishment that society could have been so bigoted to have passed such disciminatory laws.
The argument whkeller makes is borderline insane - if we had had a vote before the civil war I am sure the states in the south would have upheld slavery, even in the 60's the populace in the south would have voted against voter rights for blacks. Would those votes by bigoted people have somhow made it OK to violate basic civil rights? I beg to differ!-
Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 5:33:30 PM
"One group." It was those darn Mormons, right? They are about 2% of the voters. The other five million voters made up their own minds. (or do you think the sneaky Mormons put a spell on them?)
Talk about ignorant.
-
-
Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 12:17:58 PM
Quindlen is disingenous (to put it mildly) when she suggests that it is not the people that spoke, but Mormon money. According to the L.A. Times, opponents of Prop 8 raised $38.4 million (12 million out of state) compared to $36.1 million in support of Prop 8 ($10.7 million out of state). Thus, Hollywood stars and gay activists got more than equal air time, and the people made their choice.
-
Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/19/2008 4:31:42 PM
More often than not, the denial of equal rights amongst the population (in this case the right to marry the consenting adult of one's choosing) has been made by the voters. And, more often than not, the judicial system has had to declare the denial of rights to be unconstitional. It is the job of the of the judicial system to decide when popular opinion is at odds with justice.
-
Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 5:26:38 PM
Your argument depends on a made-up right. The right to marry a consenting adult of one's choosing. From where do you derive that right (i.e., the right to force the government to sanction a relationship of your choosing)? It ain't in the constitution.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 5:32:38 PM
Amendments IX and XIV.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 5:22:39 PM
Hey, bigots:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/169604
So sad. The CA supreme court is falling all over itself to hear the case.
-
Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 12:21:13 PM
Let's clear something up. The Mormon Church as an organization donated a few thousand bucks in the form of travel reimbursements for its leaders. The millions of dollars of so-called Mormon money were private donations by members of the church (who happen to be citizens with a right to speak their mind).
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 12:26:44 PM
"Let's clear something up. The Mormon Church as an organization donated a few thousand bucks in the form of travel reimbursements for its leaders."
That's all it takes. Their tax exempt status should be revoked, effective the day they became involved.-
Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 3:37:23 PM
Wrong. Tax exempt religions can support issues, not candidates. I think the church hired lawyers who know a little more about this than you, smarty-pants.
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 4:14:44 PM
"Wrong. Tax exempt religions can support issues, not candidates."
Incorrect. Tax exempt religions are banned from spending money on any portion of the democratic process. I think it's time we made an example of them, to discourage ANY religious organization from attempting to subvert the legal process.-
Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 5:17:57 PM
Doc, you are wrong.
If you really care about the truth, educate yourself. See, for example, http://www.ombwatch.org/npadv/PDF/CRSReportonTaxexemptorganizationsRestrictions.pdf
It says that "IRC § 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on policy
and legislative issues," but they may not support candidates for public office.
-
-
-
-
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- It's not important to be perfect here. It’s important to act Bill Clinton on health overhaulWSJ
- Dead on arrival to the Senate Sen. Lindsey Graham on House bill CBS
- We did what we promised Rep. Steny Hoyer on passing health-reform NYT
- That was easy Nancy Pelosi after passing health care bill PLTCO
- Germany unity is not yet complete Angela Merkel on Berlin Wall anniversary CNN
Discuss