The same-sex legal mess in CA

There will, of course be legal challenges to the proposition, there always are. These mandates have been overturned before on some technicality in the way they were worded.

Rod: many Americans, even in blue states like California, simply don't feel comfortable with homosexuality, for whatever reason.

for whatever reason?? for whatever reason??

Are you sure you're comfortable with that statement? Have you any idea what homosexuals actually do to each other? And for that they should be allowed to adopt your sons should you and Julie be killed in, say, an airplane crash? Do you want your sons taught in the public schools that this psychopathy is merely an alternative lifestyle?

You had better hope that the cultural Marxists that are now in power will deign to allow you to practice your anachronistic biblical faith even in the Crunchy Christian Kibbutz you cherish in you fondest Fourierist hopes.

In any case, allowing a simple majority vote to change a state constitution is a recipe for problems.

Matt and Daniel do not seem to understand the concept of "civil discourse", and might want to look up the logical fallacy called an "ad hominem" attack.

While people like Roland ably demonstrate that hatred and bigotry are alive and well, I'm not convinced that "not being comfortable with gays" is the primary problem here. I think that at the root of the issue is that many people at a gut level understand that once this threshold has been crossed, we will make the changes which have given us skyrocketing divorce rates, illegitimacy rates, child abuse rates, persistent child poverty, etc. into acknowledged, approved parts of our culture. Because same sex marriage wasn't started by gay rights activists seeking to redefine marriage. It was started by heterosexuals who have already redefined marriage into something which no longer serves any particular purpose which would lead us to reasonably believe it ought to be the exclusive province of straight people. The arguments against gay marriage are often mushy and less clear than they ought to be because the only legitimate arguments to be made against gay marriage indict heterosexuals for their own neglect of marriage, children and cooperation between the sexes.

There are reasons that all cultures, even those which have been tolerant of homosexuality, have seen marriage as a male-female(s) union centered around biological families. They are not religious reasons, but have to do with making sure that the sexes lived together cooperatively and ensuring that the adults in a society have been raised up in such a way that they can carry that society forward. It comes out of biology and the reality of human nature. However, we abandoned all of the things which pushed us into and supported this very rational, normal way of arranging society long ago in order to pursue happiness in new and exciting ways, freed from fuddy duddy constraints on our behavior. So now, the only real, valid argument against gay marriage which we can articulate without indicting ourselves and opening up real challenges to our behavior are vague bromides about "tradition", not changing things, and the hopefully dwindling, but still present "yuck" factor. I agree with Rod that gay marriage is all but inevitable at some point in time. However, the solution isn't turning back gay rights activists (although that may be needed to buy us some time). The only real solution is to re-embrace a saner, more restrictive and realistic view of marriage as it has always existed: something which grows out the necessities of biology and human nature. Which means we need to put even more energy into changing heterosexual's attitudes than we do into worrying about homosexuals.

> Have you any idea what homosexuals actually do to each other? And for that they should be allowed to adopt your sons should you and Julie be killed in, say, an airplane crash? Do you want your sons taught in the public schools that this psychopathy is merely an alternative lifestyle?

Sorry, AML, but I can't fault Matt and Daniel for being disgusted by these comments from Roland. How do you have civil discourse with someone who considers gays "psychopaths"?

What to gays and lesbians do to each other? Most of the same stuff straights do to each other, really. They just do it matching parts, as it were. But the other 23 hours of the day, the really are no different from any other couple: they have meals together, watch TV, do laundry, worry about finances and car repairs, etc. Scary stuff, indeed.

Roland also misses the point that many gays and lesbians have had children, either from marriages made before accepting their sexuality or as a conscious decision to create families with their partners. The situation isn't as simple as gays having to adopt orphans--the reality is that many children have gay birth parents. And research has found little cause for alarm about their ability to raise children.

So I hope this was civil enough, but really, when gays are accused of being psychopaths, civility has already been abandoned.

Hey Roland, I seem to remember your gracious post noting that God allowed Obama's grandmother to pass away the day before the election so she wouldn't have to watch him fail.

So tell me, what does having your words stuffed down your throat by an enormous margin taste like?

And now these rather sad comments about our homosexual brothers and sisters, full of venom and animosity.

I can only assume the bitter taste of your own empty prophecy is made more palatable by the side of fiery venom and sour grapes.

And remember, nothing makes your point more effectively than correcting the grammar of your foes. That's how we know you have a really effective argument to make.

I swear before God that the Christians here often provide the strongest reasons to despise Christ. How sad.

"Judicial usurpation of politics"?

You're aware, I'm sure, that the judiciary is an established part of the federal and state governments, right? This so called "usurpation" is actually one of those famous "checks and balances" that was put in place, among other things, to try and protect people's rights from the tyranny of the majority?

Bottom line: Ask the most PC liberal young professional married couple in the bluest of blue states if they hope one of their kids turns out gay?? Standard respone, we'd stil love he/she if they did. Of course they would. But at the same time, they hope their children are all nomnal healthy straight kids.

Gay Victimology and the Liberal Kulturkampf

http://www.anti-state.com/raimondo/raimondo1.html

Andrew Sullivan is a joke

DeeAnn -

So you live in Oz. Great. Good for you. What does anything in YOUR life have to do with a gay couple in California?

Eddie,
What's wrong with Oz?

DeeAnn

DeeAnn -

You have said that "Gays have the same rights as Heterosexuals". I've given a real life example on how that is patently untrue.

You, nor anyone else on this board who has said that gays have the same rights will explain how my example - a real life example - isn't grossly unjust.

Oz is great, as I said in my post. Good for you.

"I agree with him when he goes on to say that that's all going to change one of these days."

I'd be curious to see your logic. The same views about inevitable decline/progress mean there may be only so much one can do to a society before it veers in an unexpected direction. While pornography and Hollywood produce effective propaganda for breaking down mores, they may provoke unexpected, effective, and near-opposite reactions.

DeeAnn - November 6, 2008 12:51 AM

Eddie,
I feel for your brother. I would have no problem supporting a law or amending the current laws to allow your brother's partner to emmigrate to the US. Legalizing gay marriage isn't the way to fix that problem. It's a very rare exception.

DeeAnn

DeeAnn - Thank you for the response, but you have no idea what you're talking about. If you did, you'd know that there is a bill, titled the "Uniting American Families Act", which is currently in Congress. It's H.R. 2221 in the House, and S. 1328 in the Senate. The bill was introduced by Jerrold Nadler in the House in May 2007, and Patrick Leahy in the Senate, also in May 2007. The bill has 118 Co-Sponsors in the House and 18 Co-Sponsors in the Senate.

The bill would "amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.

It's currently sitting in a committee, because of a lack of GOP support. So, DeeAnn, you can help by calling GOP congressmen and Senators and asking them to support the "Uniting American Families Act".

Because same sex marriage wasn't started by gay rights activists seeking to redefine marriage. It was started by heterosexuals who have already redefined marriage into something which no longer serves any particular purpose which would lead us to reasonably believe it ought to be the exclusive province of straight people.

True that. And banning same sex marriage won't do anything to strengthen traditional marriage. We've been married 32 years, and during the last five months we noticed no appreciable diminution in our relationship, nor did the passage of Prop 8 yesterday make us safer or stronger in our relationship.

Which brings up a simple question: What good did Prop 8 do? Did it make marriages stronger? Did it get rid of homosexuality? Did it prevent kids from ever seeing or hearing about homosexuality? Did it guarantee that no-one ever again will grow up gay? What, exactly, did this accomplish other than making life harder for people who aren't us?

I'm stupid, I just don't get it.

as I learned from Dr. Lewis Lancaster's lecture, technology forces change in religion. Look no further than the invention of printing, especially in early China and what it did for the spread of Buddhism there, or Gutenberg and what his press did for Christianity. In both cases, technology both advanced and hindered traditional religion. With that technology, both Buddhism and Christianity had to change. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that with all of the other new technologies in the past century, along with the social changes that have been produced, we'll start to see that the traditional religions have to either adapt or fall into irrelevancy. Probably they will change to meet the new needs of new people, despite all the argument from conservatives.

As for the gay marriage thing, I can't really say I see it changing in the short term, and Rod is right that it won't be helped by a court battle. Wait for technology to change religion as it always has (it's coming, just give it time) and you'll see more acceptance of things like gay marriage.

"The judicial usurpation of politics." So that's what you're calling it now? Tired of "activist judges," are we? Look, miscegenation would never have ended by popular vote. Ditto "separate but equal." The judicial branch serves a vital purpose in a democracy -- to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny (and ignorance) of the majority. California is a painful example of what happens when you put the rights of a minority to a popular vote. Thank God for the judiciary, which is every bit as democratic an institution as the ballot box. The people -- where Proposition 8 is concerned -- be damned.

"(btw, I deleted a comment from this site earlier, in which a gay man threatened to kill me for my bigotry, and said that the marvelous day is coming when churches will lose their tax exempt status and Christians will be persecuted):"

Please ignore such idiots. There are idiots on every side. I, for one, am a Christian and a lesbian. I do not wish to see a day when churches lose their tax exempt status and Christians are persecuted. I don't even wish to see a day when churches are forced to marry two people of the same sex when thier beliefs are counter to that. However, I do wish to see a day when I can legally marry my partner. Religious marriage and legal marriage are two separate things.

"The gays want special rights. They don't CARE about anybody else. They want what they want. They want perversion to be mainstream acceptable, loved and adored."

I've often wondered how people with views like yours rationalize the well-documented examples of homosexual behavior in other animals, which -- and hey, I'm just a biologist, what do I know? -- seems to suggest that sexual orientation is more than "a choice" and certainly not "a perversion" unless penguins, dolphins, bonobos etc. are hellbound, sinful animals.

federal constitution (including bill of rights) trumps state constitutions. normally, all of these unconstitutional state propositions would quickly (as possible) go to the supreme court and be annulled, but the court is now dominated by conservative judicial activists.
wikipedia.org/wiki/State_supreme_court#Appellate_jurisdiction

this means that within 10 years, the shifting electorate will themselves begin reversing the discriminatory laws.

the only real solution is to remove bias regarding private partnership from the law (eg, support freedom of association). sure, "civil union" can be substituted for "marriage", but why have that nanny-state cr4p in the law?

yes, conservative theocrats have been blind to seeing the approaching outcome of their stubborn insistence on special rights for fundamentalists.
'yes on 8' spent somewhat more money than 'no on 8'. yet, 'yes on 8' barely won.

It would be very good to have governmont out of the marriage business. A lot of the worry over gay marriage is not just about the institution of marriage, but the government interference in, and prosecution of, religions that don't go along with their new definitions of marriage. If the government is out of the marriage business entirely, then it is a religious concern and gay couples are free to go find themselves clergy that are willing to marry them, and churches are free to refuse to perform any such marriage and even to refuse to recognize it. Imagine, people would actually have to deal with freedom instead of whining to the government "I want it all my way".
(in the interest of disclosure, I consider marriage a mystery of the the Holy Orthodox Church in accord with the Traditions of the Church and gay marriage can't exist, but if your not a member of the Church, then go do what you want and let us do the same).

Speaking of contracts, there are still 31 States in which you can be fired (or simply not hired in the first place) simply for being. Gay, that is.

Why does America keep cr@pping on its own Constitution?

Speaking of contracts, there are still 31 States in which you can be fired (or simply not hired in the first place) simply for being. Gay, that is.

Why does America keep cr@pping on its own Constitution?

Since the Constitution recognizes freedom of association such things do not violate the Constitution, but, rather, laws that force employers to associate with people that they would rather not associate with are the ones that run counter to the Constitution. Now, in the case of corporations, they are creatures of the state and the state can impose whatever restrictions they want on them, but private individuals should be able to associate with whoever they want, whenever they want.

Your Name: No one in their (ahem) 'right' mind argues that any biological population is, or is about to become "exclusively homosexual".

You underestimate the effect of cosmic rays. The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in ourselves but in our stars and their potential for chromosomal mischief from high energy radiation.

Besides, marriage is for procreation. Why would I need a government certificate to legitimate the hours spent in my mistress's embrace? A mistress is expensive enough without yet another government-mandated fee.

Or has heterosexual fellatio been outlawed in the U. S. of A. now?

Yes, in fact it has, unless preceded by a prolonged course of cunnilingus. Women's lib, you know.

So now adoption agencies are gonna start asking hets if htey engage in anal sex before they're allowed to adopt?

Not at all. But they must produce a proctologist's affidavit that that is not their exclusive copulative methodology and hence ipso facto preclusive of gestational success.

you consider lies as "civil discourse"

Pas du tout. I consider lies essential to civil intercourse, particularly to conciliate one's wife.

non-metaphysical stephen: How do you have civil discourse with someone who considers gays "psychopaths"?

I was using the term "psychopathy" in its literal sense, i.e. a morbidity of the soul. Perverse pursuit of unnatural copulation is indeed evidence of a intrinsically disordered psyche. Healing can come with psychiatric therapy and fervent prayer or both for the vacillating agnostic.

Roland also misses the point that many gays and lesbians have had children, either from marriages made before accepting their sexuality or as a conscious decision to create families with their partners. The situation isn't as simple as gays having to adopt orphans--the reality is that many children have gay birth parents. And research has found little cause for alarm about their ability to raise children.

"Accepting their sexuality"? Or more accurately, rejecting the natural sexuality that produced their children. Is the breakup of a marriage to be praised when the goal is mere extra-marital dalliance? Why should the breakup of a home be applauded because one of the spouses "accepts his sexuality." What about the psychological effect on the children? Oh, wait -- "little cause for alarm." It is not only sodomy, it is adultery. But apparently a cause for jubilation when flaunted by a New Hampshire Episcopalian bishop.

JPL: Hey Roland, I seem to remember your gracious post noting that God allowed Obama's grandmother to pass away the day before the election so she wouldn't have to watch him fail.

Hey JPL, other than from a juvenile desire to grandstand, why would you introduce an irrelevancy from another thread? Post your pique there. And in so doing you might be forced to reread what I wrote and perhaps even understand the point.

And now these rather sad comments about our homosexual brothers and sisters, full of venom and animosity.

Don't you mean fire and brimstone? The divinely wrought cataclysm that razed Sodom and Gomorrah?

I swear before God that the Christians here often provide the strongest reasons to despise Christ.

Capital! An admirably subtle bit of ratiocination that hadn't occurred to me. But Sodom and Gomorrah is from the Torah. Don't blame the Christians.

Rawlins Gilliland: Roland spared us the every-third-clause-in-French fromage-y whine sauces. Gracias.

De nada. Me alegro que estés aprendiendo el castellano. La lengua será muy útil cuando el presidente electo abrirá las compuertas de inmigración del Tercer Mundo.

In Roland's insistance that he knows what 'homosexuals actually do to each other' (let's not press him about his insider info sourcing)

Rawlins, what a meretricious attempt at impishness. If you have something to say, say it. Innuendo is beneath a man of your courtly urbanity.

MI: It's always fun to see these gay marriage threads explode.

There is no greater internet pleasure than to stir up a hornet's nest in the comboxes. :-)

Don't you mean fire and brimstone? The divinely wrought cataclysm that razed Sodom and Gomorrah?

Yes, but the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality but, rather, inhospitality and ungenerosity:

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. -- Exekial 16:49

Roland, the whole "I use eight languages and try to speak like the 21st Century Cyrano de Bergerac" grows rapidly tiresome, particularly since when pinned on any particular issue, rather than addressing it you descend into luridly floral language that attempts to cover that, rather than using your ass for the despised act of gay sex, you're speaking out of it.

I've been down this road with you far too many times to bother again, so I'll stop here. From where I stand, you might be really Catholic, and deeply multilingual, but you don't look at all Christian.

Don't believe everything Ezekiel says. He was a blatant allegorist, not a literalist. Besides, like the clergy, he was about to take up a collection after the homily.

Then you shouldn't have a problem pointing out the allegorical elements in the passage.

"Homosexual marriage: Yuck. It disgusts me on a visceral level. Sorry."

Sorry to you. The argument from disgust just doesn't work on the logical level. Among the things most people find disgusting are: the making of most processed meat products they nonetheless willingly eat; invasive major surgery including such lifesaving procedures as appendectomies, heart bypasses, and cesarian births; and normal vaginal childbirth.

No, it's not a lie, it's the traditional Jewish take on the Sodom and Gomorrah story. The mere fact that it disagrees with the traditional Christian interpretation does not make it a lie.

Larry: then you shouldn't have a problem pointing out the allegorical elements in the passage.

The allegory lies in the use of the destruction of Sodom as a warning for the coming destruction of Jerusalem.

But you have omitted 16:50 which reads: And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

There is a long list of "abominations" in Leviticus, prominent among which is "man lying with mankind." That list of abominations was committed by the men of old and they defiled the land.

If you are going to quote a passage, quote all of it. And especially do not make a claim which is so fatuous as to beggar belief. Sodom was not destroyed because the welcome wagon broke down.

There is a long list of "abominations" in Leviticus, prominent among which is "man lying with mankind." That list of abominations was committed by the men of old and they defiled the land.

Why would God hold Sodom accountable for the Levitical law? Not only was Sodom not Jewish, couldn't be Jewish at the time, but the Law hadn't been given yet and there is nothing in either the Christian or Jewish tradition that says that the Levitical law is binding on anybody but Jews. Leviticus also says that eating unclean meat is an abomination, do you suppose that Sodom was destroyed for eating too much ham?

If you are going to quote a passage, quote all of it.

The whole Bible makes for a long post.

Sodom was not destroyed because the welcome wagon broke down.

As I said above, take it up with Ezekiel. Or find a passage that unambiguously places the fault with the Sodom's "gayness". Or that the very least, when you are identifying allegorical elements, use the ones that are under discussion. What is the Sodomites lack of generosity and inhospitality allegorically related to? Are you seriously trying to claim that Ezekiel was allegorically relating ungenerosity with homosexuality?

Larry: Why would God hold Sodom accountable for the Levitical law? .....

It is fairly clear that no law at all was binding on the Sodomites. But Ezekiel uses the term "abominations" and he was well aware of the way that term had been used before him. Indeed, it encompasses more that one type of iniquity. I do not suppose that Sodom was destroyed for eating ham, but lying with the pig may have been a factor. The story in Genesis specifically refers to homosexual rape, which certainly with rabbinical subtlety might be construed as inhospitable. The multitude gathered outside Lot's door was not clamoring for ham sandwiches, but for unimpeded access to the guests in Lot's house. The throng was struck blind for this abomination, not for worshiping idols, or bestiality, or coveting their neighbor's electric sheep shears. It's pretty clear God thought the Sodomites a bad lot. But it is impossible to eliminate the element of homosexual rape from the account.

"But it is impossible to eliminate the element of homosexual rape from the account. "

I think we can all agree that rape of any sort is bad, hmm?

How does that have any thing to do with gay marriage?

On a related note, I would venture that much has been made of Lot's proposal to offer his daughters to the mob to satiate their passion. Lot has come under (to put it mildly) quite a bit of criticism here for that. Hospitality customs in the Near East and Black Sea area are actually pretty unforgiving in many regards (and are still in force in some areas, I understand). A guest in your home MUST be defended to the point of death. Period. Lot was following inviable social expectations when he offered his daughters, since giving the guests over to the mob was even more unthinkable. This also goes some way to explaining the charge of inhospitality against Sodom and Gomorrah.

They were not under judgment for eating ham sandwiches, obviously. They weren't even judged for being gay, as it were.

They were judged for being bloodthirsty blaggards who preyed on travelers and beat, raped and (all too likely), murdered them.

"But what greater example of the judicial usurpation of politics could you ask for?"

Rod, I expected more from you. The framers designed a democracy and not a majoritarian system of government. The fact of the matter is that one role of the judiciary is to "usurp" politics. Judges are unelected officials with the power to thwart the will of the majority that is expressed through democratic mechanisms. Certainly courts can overstep their bounds. To blithely assert, however, that a judicial annulment of Proposition 8 is somehow untoward or an improper exercise of judicial power wholly ignores the role of the courts in our system of government and comes close to sounding like the hackneyed (and utterly meaningless) incantation that judges should only "interpret" the law and not "legislate from the bench."

On the other hand, American history gives us precedent on how to deal with judicial overreach, for better or worse. But its not a precedent that is used much. Simply put, the executive, as established by Andrew Jackson, can, and has, refused to enforce judicial verdicts. The only recent case that I can think of was in Washington State when a referendum limited the amount of money the state could collect to register a car to 35 bucks. The supreme court struck it down but Gov. Locke took one look at the overwhelming numbers that passed the referendum and said, we're gonna do it anyway, regardless of the courts decision.

And Roland, our empathy is also with you as a fellow sinner, a Sodomite under the Jewish interpretation of the Sodom story.

Ubi O Ubi est meum sub ubi.

Roland,

I'll ask you the same question I asked Dee Ann on another thread.
Can you please draw me a good line between homosexual acts and things that are "OK"?

Seriously.

Is it a homosexual act for two people of the same sex to shake hands?
To hold hands?
To hug?
To kiss on the cheek?
To express affection?
To say "I love you"?
To hug for more than 2 seconds?
To snuggle?
To kiss on the lips?

And while you ponder where you'd draw the line there, I'll challenge you here:

This is about family, not sexual acts. Our marriage is our commitment and desire to be a family. And as part of that, he takes me into his family, and I take him into my family. He gets to call my parents Mom and Dad. I get to call his mother Mom. His nieces and nephews call me Uncle. My nieces and nephews call him Uncle. We show up and make time for family commitments. We pitch in to support the family.

Do you reject even that? Am I really being THAT presumptious in asserting that we are a family, that we have become part of each other's families?

From the Book of Ruth, what of Ruth's pledge to Naomi that her people will be Ruth's people, her God will be Ruth's God? Isn't there a "becoming family to each other's families" aspect to marriage that we can trace back to scripture?

Can you please pry your mind and your way of seeing me away from my genitalia, and understand me as a human being seeking affection, a life partner, and building a family?

Roland,

"Besides, marriage is for procreation."

Please tell us in what jurisdiction anywhere in the world where procreationn is a requirement of marriage.

When asked, "has heterosexual fellatio been outlawed in the U. S. of A. now?" you replied:

"Yes, in fact it has".

And you 'think' anal sex is the "exclusive copulative methodology" of gay people (or that betterosexuals don't engage in it, and that engaging in it diqualifies gays from marriage and/or adoption but not for hets).

You seem to consider lies as "civil discourse" and "essential" to it.

You consider gay sex as "unnatural copulation", yet the exact same sex acts (oral and anal sex) are not "unnatural" for heterosexuals.

You quote the Catholic line precisely - "evidence of a intrinsically disordered psyche" forgetting about America's "promise" of freedom of religionn. (We ain't all Catholics.)

Nor are we in need of "Healing".

No wonder I think you're delusional.

Oh, and a P.S. - add to the official list of abominations the eating of lobster and other shellfish. Speaking of quoting from the whole of the Bible, should we have a ballot initiative to ensure we put the victims of incest to death as the Bible commands us? Bring back freedom of (and from) religion to America.