Liberal Evangelical signs Manhattan Declaration

Narcissism doesn't become sound public policy just because it is presented at great length. The notion that I can say "white" and expect everyone to know I mean "black" is beneath contempt. There isn't much new in the last couple of comments, so I will just note one item about constitutional foundations. A constitution is a document which sets forth the fundamental powers and limitations of a government. It is not a moral code, nor is it a mission statement. It does not say how legislation should be shaped, it merely defines what the legislature, and the executive, and the judiciary have power to do.

That is why, when Roe v. Wade comes up, I always remind the disputants that the Supreme Court did not rule on whether abortion is a good thing or a bad thing, whether it is morally sound or grossly immoral, the Supreme Court merely said that certain provisions in the Bill of Rights bar The State from making such a decision for a pregnant woman -- it is a right reserved to the people, or more precisely, to the individual person concerned. Ditto for Lawrence v. Texas. The court did not rule on whether homosexuality is an abomination unto the Lord, or not, whether it is beneficial or harmful, they merely ruled that The State should keep the police out of the bedroom. It is not within the jurisdiction conferred by the constitution upon government, it is reserved to consenting adults to decide for themselves.

So, "How does it hurt me?" is not a relevant question, UNLESS there is a well grounded constitutionally specified and protected right, which is being balanced against some asserted state interest. There is no particular state interest in banning homosexual activity, at least in private between consenting adults. Nor is there any constitutional right to have the term "marriage" bestowed upon each and every person's preferred form of sexual gratification. So the question of relative harm does not even arise.

Nor has any individual been "banned" from marrying. We are not talking about four different sexes here. We are talking about two sexes, men and women. If it were not so, the very word "homosexual" would be superfluous. Every man, and every woman, has a right to marry. If you don't understand what is functionally different between men and women, then I really don't think I can explain it to you. Your fellow employees, who posted a sign on the bathroom door to identify which sex was occupying the room at any given moment, surely understood the point. Come to think of it, if you don't know, how can you limit your preference to those of your own sex? Nonsense is nonsense, and perhaps the voters of Maine are simply waiting for a more coherent reason to accept a redefinition of marriage.

Crustacean isn't a racist. He's a misanthrope. He hates everybody. He also makes a real effort to exemplify why we should all be misanthropes.

If you click on the link for the preceding post, about the tory muslim peer getting egged, you will find an article which is really more relevant to this post, about Afghanistan. It is very much I haven't questioned Charles Dodgson, I questioned whether those who claim he said that "black is white" is perfectly logical have any idea what they are talking about. Or, he may have been showing the difference between "logical" and "accurate." If you want to argue about who properly understands the intended symbolism of Lewis Carroll, I'm not sure there is ANY way to resolve that one.

Nor am I expressing opposition to marriage licenses for same-sex couples. I am expressing opposition to sloppy constitutional reasoning. Just because it might be a good idea, if it is, does not rise to the level of a constitutional right.

I devote a lot of thought to this, partly because the integrity of the constitution is important, and it has no integrity if it means whatever someone wants it to mean at any given moment on any given issue. Also, I think it was a gross error, tactically and perhaps morally, to demand same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, when a large part of the population wasn't ready for it.

This is NOT a civil rights issue. Neither "heterosexual couples" nor "same sex couples" have a right to anything. Individual citizens have rights. One of those rights is to enter into any legal status the government provides for, on the same basis as any other citizen. There doesn't even have to be a rational reason for that status to exist. In the case of marriage, there is necessarily a distinction between a man entering into marriage, and a woman entering into marriage, since (precedent at the time the issue was first raised), it takes one of each to form a marriage. Every man has the same access on the same terms as every other man. Ditto for women.

The weakest point in your argument is the assertion that I am relying on "a definition of marriage that does not match how the word is used today." Now we are back to Alice in Wonderland. Used by who? Unless there is a commonly accepted definition, the word means nothing. The last time I used this humpty dumpty example, I was talking to a manager where I worked, who asserted that to present a strongly worded written claim that my work hours had not been properly accounted for, constituted "harassment" of the payroll department! Again, "when I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean." He eventually referred me to Black's Law Dictionary, but unfortunately for him, I looked it up, and it did not provide the slightest support for his self-serving redefinition.

Nobody has to justify a definition of marriage, which has 300 plus years of legal precedent and usage behind it. Someone who wants to change that definition has to convince, not themselves and their closest friends, but the entire body of citizenry who also rely on the common and precedented definition. You're making progress. In many states, you are up to 47% or so. Now, do the hard work of persuading the other 53%, and stop looking for short cuts with sloppy reasoning that borders on narcissism. point. Republicans all say we should stay the course and not back down, but where is the spinal fortitude to pay for the costs of the war? There is no spirit of shared sacrifice, not even a little bitty tax increase to buy the troops properly armored vehicles, and body armor, and keep them supplied properly.

For the last fifteen years, the Democrats have been the pay-as-you-go party, while the Republicans have been the borrow-and-spend party. The problem with the Republican philosophy, as Margaret Thatcher might have pointed out, is that sooner or later you run out of the People's Republic of China's money.