Marriage equality

[+DieChecker]

Do you really think that anyone who is 50 or older is conservative? I know lots of 50+ people who are liberal.

I know lots of liberal 50+ people too. Most are former school teachers. Most of the rest of the older people I know are church going conservatives. An individual persons range of personal relationships is not a good guide of any national demographic.

That being said, it is inevitable that same-sex marriage will become socially acceptable and legal in all states.

I agree. The only question is it going to be forced on the US public in the next two years, or.... will it happen gradually over a decade or two, as all other progressive movements did.

[+DieChecker]

It is a ridiculous idea that keeps getting repeated that all opposition to gay marriage is from the religious right and the only folks against it are religious fanatics. It is obviously untrue, never has been true-- as Calif shows-- but it just keeps getting regurgitated. I guess it must be that libs simply can't imagine any source of moral principles other than a Divine Being (and they don't believe in that!)

Reminds me of a teenager, who not getting their own way, just keep screaming, "I HATE YOU!".

[+DieChecker]

Discrimination probably shouldn't be put to a popular vote. If that were the case, Blacks wouldn't be allowed in the same schools as whites in the south, and women would never have been able to vote.

But, it can not help but be. We elect officials to represent us, and other officials, like some judges, are appointed by the elected officals. And people will usually vote for those that most closely represent their thinking, and the majority of votes will elect that offical.

So, if the majority does not favor gay marriage, in the long run it will not happen. It so happens that the current officials would seem to favor a Federal ruling in favor of gay marriage, however, it is suspected that this subject will not reach the US Supreme Court for almost 2 years, so who knows what will happen then, late in a Presidential Election year. The deciding factor will be the composition of the Supreme Court at that time. Right now the court has 5 justices appointed by Republicans, 4 of whom usually vote conservatively and 4 justices who were appointed by Democrats, 2 of whom usually vote liberally. Sotomayor and Kagan are still new and don't have long track records to say they are more liberal, but suspitions are that they will vote liberal. The wild card is Kennedy, who sometimes sides with either side.

As usual in the Supreme Court these days, the swing vote belongs to Anthony Kennedy. And there are several reasons to believe that Kennedy, though conservative on many issues, will vote with the liberals on this one. The Supreme Court has issued two major decisions dealing with gay rights over the past 15 years. Both decisions came out strongly in favor of gay rights -- and both were written by Justice Kennedy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/how-will-the-supreme-cour_b_671096.html

Of course this was written for Huffington Post, so it is almost like referencing a Creationist site about dinosaurs.

[J.B.]

It is a ridiculous idea that keeps getting repeated that all opposition to gay marriage is from the religious right and the only folks against it are religious fanatics. It is obviously untrue, never has been true-- as Calif shows-- but it just keeps getting regurgitated. I guess it must be that libs simply can't imagine any source of moral principles other than a Divine Being (and they don't believe in that!)

And I was the one who brought it up this time. It's not a matter of morals, it's a matter of me thinking that opposing gay marriage is such an idiotic notion that only the religious nuts could claim to have a reason for it. Everyone else who opposes it . . . well, I have nothing good to say about blocking such things. It's no one's right or business to shut down couples who are actually in love, outside of age considerations, and such arrogance is only befitting of those who either think themselves demi-gods or think they have the Big Boss on their side about it.

Edited September 1, 2010 by J.B.

[TFSM]

I know lots of liberal 50+ people too. Most are former school teachers. Most of the rest of the older people I know are church going conservatives. An individual persons range of personal relationships is not a good guide of any national demographic.

When I first read your post it sounded like you were saying that there weren't any 50+ liberals. Now that I've read it again I see that you are not making that claim.

I agree. The only question is it going to be forced on the US public in the next two years, or.... will it happen gradually over a decade or two, as all other progressive movements did.

Not all other progressive movements were "un-forced". I seem to recall the national guard being brought in to protect black school kids after desegregation. I remember reading about protests by feminists for the right to vote. Why should homosexuals have to wait for conservatives to get over their personal biases in 10 or 20 years before they are afforded their constitutional equality?

[TFSM]

It is a ridiculous idea that keeps getting repeated that all opposition to gay marriage is from the religious right and the only folks against it are religious fanatics. It is obviously untrue, never has been true-- as Calif shows-- but it just keeps getting regurgitated. I guess it must be that libs simply can't imagine any source of moral principles other than a Divine Being (and they don't believe in that!)

I wouldn't say "all" of it is, but I'm pretty sure that a vast majority is. You refer to California, but you forget how much money was spent campaigning by religious groups to push this through. This includes ignorant television ads and propaganda.

[venqax]

Not all other progressive movements were "un-forced". I seem to recall the national guard being brought in to protect black school kids after desegregation. I remember reading about protests by feminists for the right to vote. Why should homosexuals have to wait for conservatives to get over their personal biases in 10 or 20 years before they are afforded their constitutional equality?

You are just asserting that this is a matter of constitutional equality. It is easy to argue-- knowledgeably rather from just informed emotion-- that it is not. They should wait because that is how society works, and they are part of society. Is working thru the political process for your agenda an abnormal burden? Everyone has to do it, why should gays get a free pass to end run the process?

[venqax]

And... did the people of your state vote for it? Would you like the Federal Government to shut down your marriage law? That is what happened in Califonia. They voted and reaffermed their state constitution, which was struck down by the Fed.

I don't believe that opposition is only religous. The problem is not just religous, but societal and cultural. Do you think that only the Christians voted for "Man and Woman" in California? Religion is a big part, maybe the major reason, but not the only reason.

.

Precisely Societies and cultures have values and norms besides religion, right? Atheists are always complaining that non-religiousness is not equal to amorality, yet as soon a moral issue arises they call it religious-- as if the 2 ARE in fact inseparable. So are you saying that without religion there is no sense of right and wrong? Atheists have no moral compass? Societies have no values if not religion-based? Lib are contradicting their own propaganda, and delegitimizing their own social argumnents if they recognize no standards at all outside religion. BTW, opposition to abortion, child molestation, and animal cruelty are not entirely based on religion, either. Are you suggesting that no one but Bible thumpers have any reason to oppose those things? You have to get beyond simply stating your arguments as if they are the arguments themselves. "Only religious people oppose such and such because religion is the only reason to oppose it" The end. What kind of presentation is that?

[shadowhive]

You are just asserting that this is a matter of constitutional equality. It is easy to argue-- knowledgeably rather from just informed emotion-- that it is not. They should wait because that is how society works, and they are part of society. Is working thru the political process for your agenda an abnormal burden? Everyone has to do it, why should gays get a free pass to end run the process?

Would you have siad the same when it was women and black people asking for equality? 'Oh a sizeable number of the population want equality? We'll just wait until everyone thinks they deserve it.'

If you put the rights of women and black people to a vote at the time there's a high likelyhood that 'the will of the people' would have voted against them. Neither group should have had to wait and indeed they had decided they had waited long enough and campaigned for their rights.

Gay marriage, like those things, shouldn't be put to a vote. When it was done in Califonia the vote was only a few percent between the two and that was in large part to the religious right poisoning the waters with their campaigning. When it came efore the ejudge months ago people for gay marriage had expert witnesses and others for their side. by comparison, the anti-gay side had next to nothing to offer.

You're right hat the anti-gay group isn't just the religious (although they shout the loudest). But their main arguements is that homosexuality is against nature (it happens in countless animals), it's immoral (morality is subjective), that marriage is sacred (look at the divorce rates), that marriage between a man and woman is what god wants (marriage was around before any of the major religions) and that gay marriage will lead to other things (which isn't the point).

[venqax]

Would you have siad the same when it was women and black people asking for equality? 'Oh a sizeable number of the population want equality? We'll just wait until everyone thinks they deserve it.'

Pretty much, yeah. And that is what happened to a large extent. Women's suffrage was passed by a vote. Not a court decision. A real live Constitutional Amd. For blacks it took an actual war for step one. Sorry, I'm not willing to go that far for Mike and Ike to get "married".

If you put the rights of women and black people to a vote at the time there's a high likelyhood that 'the will of the people' would have voted against them. Neither group should have had to wait and indeed they had decided they had waited long enough and campaigned for their rights.

There you go again. There are no "rights" in contention. There is no "right" to marry whomever you want to-- not for straights, gay or anybody. What you want is the limitations that apply to all marriage be changed so that they don't apply to you in the way you don't like. A fine political policy goal, not a right. Why don't you do like the women and go for an Amd? Are you too good to that-- or is voting too inconsequential to make you feel equal? You have the same marriage rights I do.

Gay marriage, like those things, shouldn't be put to a vote. When it was done in Califonia the vote was only a few percent between the two and that was in large part to the religious right poisoning the waters with their campaigning. When it came efore the ejudge months ago people for gay marriage had expert witnesses and others for their side. by comparison, the anti-gay side had next to nothing to offer.

I could say the same thing about Obama and the presidency. Something that important should not be left to voters. Especially when they are so easily fooled and manipulated into voting for someone with no qualifications, no experience, no cultural understanding of America. But if not voters, then who? what privileged and enlightened elite do you think should be making these decisions for the rest of us? Libs don't like that question, do they? It forces them to face up to their basic contempt for democracy and "the People" they claim to represent.

These don't even make sense:

(it happens in countless animals) So does feces-eating. Cuz animals do it we should?

(morality is subjective) No, it's not. Not in their worldview, and the fact that you think so is the very problem.

[shadowhive]

Pretty much, yeah. And that is what happened to a large extent. Women's suffrage was passed by a vote. Not a court decision. A real live Constitutional Amd. For blacks it took an actual war for step one. Sorry, I'm not willing to go that far for Mike and Ike to get "married".

There you go again. There are no "rights" in contention. There is no "right" to marry whomever you want to-- not for straights, gay or anybody. What you want is the limitations that apply to all marriage be changed so that they don't apply to you in the way you don't like. A fine political policy goal, not a right. Why don't you do like the women and go for an Amd? Are you too good to that-- or is voting too inconsequential to make you feel equal? You have the same marriage rights I do.

I could say the same thing about Obama and the presidency. Something that important should not be left to voters. Especially when they are so easily fooled and manipulated into voting for someone with no qualifications, no experience, no cultural understanding of America. But if not voters, then who? what privileged and enlightened elite do you think should be making these decisions for the rest of us? Libs don't like that question, do they? It forces them to face up to their basic contempt for democracy and "the People" they claim to represent.

These don't even make sense:

(it happens in countless animals) So does feces-eating. Cuz animals do it we should?

(morality is subjective) No, it's not. Not in their worldview, and the fact that you think so is the very problem.

Yes I have the same marriage rights as you: to a marry a woman. Straight people can (and do) get married after weeks of meeting, but a gay couple that's been together for years can't. That's not right of fair.

I don't know much about how America's politics work. I'm not American, so I'll leave that to those that are.

See, there you go. People say homosexuality is against nature then when you point out animals do it they either say 'oh they're only animals' or, like you have, point to something that a few do. When I say that homosexuality has been observed in animals I mean it has in so many that have few things in common (apart from eating, breathing etc) that it must be a part of nature.

Yes, morality is subjective. Get two people in a room and they can have vastly different view points on morality (they can disagree about abortion, the death penalty, homosexuality etc). Look at us for example. You think homosexuality is morally wrong and I think it's not.

[Harte]

The argument that homosexuality is inborn - IMO a winning argument that I completely support - is not enough to give birth to some new "right."

That takes an amendment, as was said.

This reminds me of the current argument about the 14th amendment. Libs today are poking fun at Conservatives for wanting to change the amendment to end the constant flow of "anchor babies" in the U.S. They imply that Conservatives pretend to hold the Constitution as sacrosanct while at the same time pushing an agenda to change that very same document.

The idiots that so hold forth are either blinded by their ideology or simply ignorant. The Amendment process is part of the Constitution.

In that case, as in this one (as indicated by some of the posts in this thread,) Liberals seem to fear the will of the people. The only thing anti-constitutional in either case is this sentiment.

Do these people ever stop and think about what they are saying? Isn't everyone aware of the arduous and public path an amendment must take?

I guess this is the root of the Libs need to change the law through the court system vs. the regular legislative means that was precisely designed for exactly this process. It feeds directly into the idea that the Liberal elite know better than the rest of us what is good for us.

Sorry, but that's just not how it works in America.

The fact that a person is born a certain type does not guarantee any right for that person to have some means to make them more comfortable with their condition.

If that were true, people with red hair and freckles would have a right to lifelong discounts on sunblock.

Harte

[TFSM]

The argument that homosexuality is inborn - IMO a winning argument that I completely support - is not enough to give birth to some new "right."

That takes an amendment, as was said.

Can you direct me to the amendment that specifies that heterosexuals can get married? The right of equality is already in the constitution.

This reminds me of the current argument about the 14th amendment. Libs today are poking fun at Conservatives for wanting to change the amendment to end the constant flow of "anchor babies" in the U.S. They imply that Conservatives pretend to hold the Constitution as sacrosanct while at the same time pushing an agenda to change that very same document.

"Constant flow of anchor babies"? I haven't seen any statistics, but I find it hard to believe that this problem is so widespread as to change the constitution. To me, the 14th amendment issue is more about racial superiority than about "anchor babies".

[venqax]

Can you direct me to the amendment that specifies that heterosexuals can get married? The right of equality is already in the constitution.

The 10th Amd. That's the one that says the states get to decide this kind of thing. And they always have. And Calif. did. The only equality rights in the Const are for freed slaves in relation to citizenship. As stated before, nothing more than that was intended or lots of subsequent things, like womens' suffrage, wouldn't have been necessary to push by themselves. In fact, there is already a SC decision, Baker v Nelson, saying that the whole issue of states' denying gay marriage doesn't raise a federal issue of anykind-- not 14th amd, nothing. This was in 1971. Do you REALLY want to revisit decisions from the early 1970's? There are some who would eagerly take you up on that.

"Constant flow of anchor babies"? I haven't seen any statistics, but I find it hard to believe that this problem is so widespread as to change the constitution. To me, the 14th amendment issue is more about racial superiority than about "anchor babies".

Start believing harder. "Anchor" babies is a huge issue in border states. And who wants to change the Const? Like most conservatives, we DON'T and DIDN'T want it changed. We want it UN-changed back to what it's original intent was-- which had absolutely nothing to do with illegal aliens circumventing immigration laws. What does the 14th have to do racial superiority? It was ENDING slavery.

Edited September 2, 2010 by venqax

[TFSM]

The 10th Amd. That's the one that says the states get to decide this kind of thing. And they always have. And Calif. did. The only equality rights in the Const are for freed slaves in relation to citizenship. As stated before, nothing more than that was intended or lots of subsequent things, like womens' suffrage, wouldn't have been necessary to push by themselves. In fact, there is already a SC decision, Baker v Nelson, saying that the whole issue of states' denying gay marriage doesn't raise a federal issue of anykind-- not 14th amd, nothing. This was in 1971. Do you REALLY want to revisit decisions from the early 1970's? There are some who would eagerly take you up on that.

We typically don't put social issues like this to a popular vote. This is why we have representatives. Secondly, it becomes a federal issue if the state violates another amendment in their laws. In this case, the 14th amendment was violated

specifically "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Start believing harder. "Anchor" babies is a huge issue in border states. And who wants to change the Const? Like most conservatives, we DON'T and DIDN'T want it changed. We want it UN-changed back to what it's original intent was-- which had absolutely nothing to do with illegal aliens circumventing immigration laws. What does the 14th have to do racial superiority? It was ENDING slavery.

Again, what are the statistics? Anchor babies is just another sensationalized issue that is currently being used as a political tool by the republican party.

[venqax]

We typically don't put social issues like this to a popular vote. This is why we have representatives. Secondly, it becomes a federal issue if the state violates another amendment in their laws. In this case, the 14th amendment was violated

Yes we do. We put all issues to a popular or legislative vote unless they are part of a very, very small subset of issues dealing with fundamental rights. You want this to be considered in that small group, but there is no reason to. Issues like this-- in fact THIS VERY issue-- have always been left to the voters. And in 1971 the USSC said that was just fine. The SC was undoubtedly familiar with the terms of the 14th Amd when someone like you cited it to them. THEY said it was NOT a federal issue because the 14th was NOT violated. Look it up. You're arguing a constitutional question to what was a very liberal court.

specifically "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

You don't seem to get it-- THEY RULED ON THAT. You say the 14th Amd was violated. The SC-- not little ole me-- said no, it wasn't. They are aware of the language you so kindly re-print, but unlike you they also knew what it meant. Tho, I have to admit, they made their decision based on the same argument I would make. They probably know the rules of federal question jurisdiction better than you do. You are begging the question (that is a huge club among respondents here)

Again, what are the statistics? Anchor babies is just another sensationalized issue that is currently being used as a political tool by the republican party.

The Pew Hispanic Ctr estimates that about 1 in 15 babies born in the US have at least one illegal parent. About 80% of those-- 4 out of 5 they estimate-- are specifically anchor-babies, born for deportation-innoculation purposes. Personally, I'd call all 1 out of 15 anchor babies, as they serve the same puropse. But the Pew Center is just a far-right/GOP/Fox mouthpiece, si? I think the Dems are using your ignorance against you. Again.

Edited September 2, 2010 by venqax

[venqax]

The argument that homosexuality is inborn - IMO a winning argument that I completely support - is not enough to give birth to some new "right."

That takes an amendment, as was said.

This reminds me of the current argument about the 14th amendment. Libs today are poking fun at Conservatives for wanting to change the amendment to end the constant flow of "anchor babies" in the U.S. They imply that Conservatives pretend to hold the Constitution as sacrosanct while at the same time pushing an agenda to change that very same document.

The idiots that so hold forth are either blinded by their ideology or simply ignorant. The Amendment process is part of the Constitution.

In that case, as in this one (as indicated by some of the posts in this thread,) Liberals seem to fear the will of the people. The only thing anti-constitutional in either case is this sentiment.

Do these people ever stop and think about what they are saying? Isn't everyone aware of the arduous and public path an amendment must take?

I guess this is the root of the Libs need to change the law through the court system vs. the regular legislative means that was precisely designed for exactly this process. It feeds directly into the idea that the Liberal elite know better than the rest of us what is good for us.

Sorry, but that's just not how it works in America.

The fact that a person is born a certain type does not guarantee any right for that person to have some means to make them more comfortable with their condition.

If that were true, people with red hair and freckles would have a right to lifelong discounts on sunblock.

Harte

Well said. What does being "natural" have to do with the acceptability or desirability of anything? Civilization is at least as much about overcoming nature as it is about anything. The ebola virus is natural. That doesn't make it good. What this is about, at its core, is standards. Do societies have the right-- or better, the authority-- to set standards for what is acceptable behavior or do they not? Of course they do. Then the question is how far can they go in enforcing such standards. Well, in the case of homosexuality, criminalization is going too far. Homosexual behavior can be privately consensual, so no need for formal law to get involved. Social approbation suffices, perhaps. But marriage? That is definitively PUBLIC, not private, behavior, and brings with it some kind of official stamp of approval. We don't want to go that far, and we ESPCECIALLY don't want a decision that fundamental to be dictated AT us, against our will, by the imperial ukase of a court. We'll VOTE on it. Oh, wait, we DID already. In something like 30 states. This is an issue for the people, not some effete elite, and, for now, the people have spoken.

[Siara]

Do you really think that anyone who is 50 or older is conservative? I know lots of 50+ people who are liberal.

I'm over 50. My perception is that the world in general has gotten MORE conservative than it was when I was young. I bet the percentage of people in their 40's and 30's who are conservative is higher than the percentage of folks in their 50's. We grew up during the 1960's you know.

I think the generation of older conservatives that people refer to are the mob of people in their 70's. Their definition of "conservative" is William F. Buckley or Nelson Rockefeller, not Rush Limbaugh. A lot of these older people who vote are supporting a conservative party that no longer exists.

[questionmark]

I'm over 50. My perception is that the world in general has gotten MORE conservative than it was when I was young. I bet the percentage of people in their 40's and 30's who are conservative is higher than the percentage of folks in their 50's. We grew up during the 1960's you know.

I think the generation of older conservatives that people refer to are the mob of people in their 70's. Their definition of "conservative" is William F. Buckley or Nelson Rockefeller, not Rush Limbaugh. A lot of these older people who vote are supporting a conservative party that no longer exists.

I would agree with you, conservatives were a little minority in our generation. And yes, one should differentiate in between conservatives and reactionaries. Since the inclusion of showbizz in politics in the 80s there were more reactionaries trying to pass off as conservative.

Edited September 2, 2010 by questionmark

[Siara]

I wouldn't say "all" of it is, but I'm pretty sure that a vast majority is. You refer to California, but you forget how much money was spent campaigning by religious groups to push this through. This includes ignorant television ads and propaganda.

The Mormon Church was a huge contributor.

[ninjadude]

The Pew Hispanic Ctr estimates that about 1 in 15 babies born in the US have at least one illegal parent.

after living here for 20 years. Hardly an "anchor" now is it?

[ninjadude]

But marriage? That is definitively PUBLIC, not private, behavior, and brings with it some kind of official stamp of approval. We don't want to go that far,

yes we do actually. Except in backward rural areas.

and we ESPCECIALLY don't want a decision that fundamental to be dictated AT us, against our will, by the imperial ukase of a court.

Yes we do. if it violates the constitution, your bigotry is useless.

[venqax]

yes we do actually. Except in backward rural areas.

Yes we do. if it violates the constitution, your bigotry is useless.

ninja, read up on the constitution stuff. I exaplained it to TF, I don't think I CAN explain it to you. You might actually learn something, and be able to critically think about something, instead of just repeating the worn-out tape loop in your head.

If it's only backward rural areas, then why does it lose every time it's voted on? Did only the backward rural parts of Blue state CA vote? THINK, then write, ninja.

[venqax]

after living here for 20 years. Hardly an "anchor" now is it?

It wouldn't be an anchor after the child is grown, if that's what you mean. You'd have to ask Pew what their operationalization was. If you trust them right-wingnuts over there! But then they've alraady benefited from their illegal acts. Should everyone go free if they can "get away" with whatever their wrongdoing is for a period of time? It wouldn't be hard, given the lack of aggressiveness in our immigration enforcement. Maybe that should be the rule-- 20 yrs and you're free. OR how about, if you turn in 5 other illegals, you get legal status? Ouch. Interesting cage match there.

Edited September 3, 2010 by venqax

[ninjadude]

You might actually learn something,

learning from conservative ideals rooted in neanterthal prehistory? Hardly. Your party is a regional thing. Dying fast. The vote in California was influenced by outside forces of RELIGION - AKA the Mormons. The people of CA didn't decide. And there are plenty of backward republicans in CA, just follow the state government.