Unpopular decisions are the price of constitutional rights.

[Universe Prince]

Why is it I have to be tolerant of some reprobates idea of marriage, but he doesn't have to be tolerant of mine and the vast majority?

I don't recall anyone making that argument. I am not aware of anyone saying homosexuals but not heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.

I have to sit back and be silent when the left attempts to force their "values" on me when they refuse to accept mine?

Who said you have to be silent? I did not. And I don't recall anyone saying you personally have to approve of homosexual marriage or engage in one. Do people who have adultery force their values on you? Do unmarried couples force their values on you? No one argues you must approve or endorse or participate in these things, yet I don't see you arguing these things should be prohibited by law.

This is the case everytime. I have to remove the nativity scene. I have to stop praying at football games and in school. I have to go to the gym to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The left has to stop .... what? Attacking Conservative speakers on campus? Hanging Sarah Palin in effigy? What?

You have to remove what nativity scene? Anyway, there are a lot of things the left could and should stop. Demanding bailouts for corporations comes to mind.

Get a lawyer. Make a contract. Sign it, and leave marriage alone.

Again, making a legal contract should be what heterosexual couples do too. That would eliminate most of the issue in the first place.

[Stray Pooch]

The entire point of the revolution was to make a government that was ABOVE ALL subject to the will of the people.  No branch of the government has the right to overrule the people.  The federal constitution was ordained and established by the people.  This is also true, if only by extension, of all state constitutions.

Proposition 8 is an amendment to the constitution.  No court has the right to overrule that.  The people of California chose to OVERRULE the State Supreme Court. They have that right.  Unless that right is upheld, the government of California becomes a tyranny.  If the government has the right to overrule the will of the people, there is no government of, by and for the people.  There is a government of, by and for the government.

If the Supreme Court of California overturns the will of the people, overthrow of that government is justified.  This is not because of the issue at hand (gay marriage).  This would be equally true if the people voted to amend the constitution to establish gay marriage, legalize abortion or outlaw Mormonism.  If the people cannot OVERRULE the government, they must OVERTHROW them or the governmnt will in FACT have what they now have in practice:  absolute control of the people.

The compromise solution to the gay marriage question is to make Civil Union the norm - for ALL people.  Marriages should be a matter of religious rite.  For legal purposes, whether gay or straight, asset distribution, medical rights and other such issues are equal for everyone, irrespective of gender, race or any other factor except those which may put one party at undue risk (as in unions with children or family members or polygamy).  I know an American-English couple who were married in the LDS Temple in London.  Before they could do that, they had to have a civil ceremony or English law would not recognize the marriage.  (Only marriages in the Anglican Church, which is the established religion in England, are recognized without a prior civil ceremony.)  If all couplings were civil unions as far as the government was concerned (grandfathering any marriages already established, whether gay or straight, to avoid a logistical nightmare) and marriages were performed only by churches according to their individual beliefs, neither the rights of Americans to choose nor the rights of Americans to believe as they wish will be violated.  Extreme fundies would whine that we were all going to hell and extreme gays would argue that they are not accepted fully but that's tough on both sides.  This nation was built on compromise.

Butu whatever the final decision, the people have the right to make their own government.  It's what Thomas Jefferson wrote that little piece of paper about.  It's what the Constitution is all about.  It's what soldiers have died for over more than two centuries.

The government has taken too much power from the people.  If we cannot stem the tide at the voting booth it really is time to take to the barricades.  There is no other choice.

[Universe Prince]

So do heterosexuals have the right to marry someone of the same gender?

Yes.

Interesting that the anti-government, pro-liberty "libertarians" support a massive, unwelcome, government intervention into the habits and customs of the people, one which creates obligations on the part of parties that aren't even signatories, and can't even name a single public interest to justify doing so. As I said, libertarians are good for patting themselves on the back for their consistent support of individual liberty, as long as they can keep quietly redefining individual liberty in support of whatever particular hobbyhorse they happen to be riding at the moment.

I have not redefined individual liberty. (And neither has any other libertarian for that matter.) Once again, you distort and attempt to misdirect. I'm not supporting government intervention. I'm supporting getting government out of the way. Your continued attempts to insist that libertarians support the opposite of what they actually support indicates you're either too foolish to understand or deliberately attempting to deceive.

Further, while you might make the argument that every person should be treated equally under the law, let me point out that associations between people are not persons, and the law distinguishes between those associations routinely. Bowling teams are not regulated like corporations, churches are not regulated like government contractors, and parents are not regulated like military facilities.

Indeed. But then, there are no laws against homosexuals forming bowling teams or corporations. I'm not arguing that homosexuals should be given special or different privileges or fall under a different set of laws. In point of fact, I am arguing that they should simply be allowed to fall under the same set of laws as heterosexuals. So your counterargument is baseless.

Marriage, as a long standing custom, has a number of arguable benefits to society at large, not the least of which that it provides institutional support for a biological imperative - namely, that as mammals, we reproduce sexually. Given that there's no comparable benefit to gay relationships, the only argument available amounts to, "But mom, you let them do it!".

No, the argument is that the government should not be playing the part of the parent granting privileges to heterosexual couples because they're heterosexual. For a very long time, slavery had arguable benefits to society at large. By your thinking, the abolitionist argument is little more than "But mom, they get to be free!" That isn't the argument at all, and you know that full well, or you should by now.

The argument for heterosexual marriage rests on a biological imperative. The only argument for gay marriage is one of equality, using a truly tortured definition of "equal". The arguments for heterosexual marriage stand on their own. Absent the existence of heterosexual marriage, what are the arguments for gay marriage?

No, the argument for allowing individuals to enter into a private contract with one another does not rest on sexual reproduction. The argument for allowing individuals to enter into a private contract with one another is that they are individuals who have a right decide for themselves to enter into a contract with another individual.

The fact that the only argument you have relies on a claim of equality indicates the situations are not equal. You can argue for heterosexual  marriage all day long without having the word "equal" come up once. Take that word out of the argument for gay marriage, and the arguments fall down like a house of cards. If you don't believe that, try making a case for gay marriage without a reference to straight marriage. I doubt you could make much of a case.

Indeed the situations are not equal. As has been pointed out: heterosexuals are allowed marry one another; homosexuals are not allowed to marry one another. That is definitely unequal.

Ahem. You can argue for white people's freedom from slavery all day long without having the word "equal" come up once. Take that word out of the argument for black people's freedom from slavery, and the arguments fall down like... No, actually they don't fall down at all. But in any case, I can argue for people being allowed to enter into a marriage contract without mentioning straight marriage at all.

Individuals have the right as individuals and should have the liberty to exercise the right to enter into marriage contracts with another consenting person of their choice. Prohibiting that liberty to a minority of the population who have done nothing wrong is an infringement of rights in which the government has no business engaging. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Universe Prince]

The compromise solution to the gay marriage question is to make Civil Union the norm - for ALL people.

I could and would (and essentially do) support that.

[sirs]

Excuse me, but can anyone point me to the verse in the Bible that specifically states that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman?

Can you point me to the verse that specifically (or even generally) refers to marriage as anything other than between a man & a woman??

I'm not trying to make a point that the Bible specifically (or even generally) refers to marriage as anything other than between a man & a woman. You, on the other hand, keep opining that for some reason that is all a marriage can be - between a man and a woman - yet you obviously cannot come up with a Biblical reference supporting that.

Especially ironic since I never claimed that the Bible was the end all to this position, regarding marriage

I don't give a crap what it is called. I find the objection to calling it a marriage to be flimsy at best.

Precisely my point.  Many do, so if you are of those who care squat, then why the inability to compromise with those who "do give a crap"??

There is no inability to compromise on my part. I'm simply saying the insistence that homosexuals not be allowed to call their marriage a marriage seems a ridiculous sticking point.

To YOU, perhaps.  To those who have much greater appreciation for marriage, and what it traditionally stands for, not so much

1 side, who concedes that rights are pretty much equal, but rationalizes no need to compromise, in any sense, claiming no need to, as if their position is THE position to attain to, on a point that's largely about one word, that they confess they care so little about.  Truely intriguing

Well, from my perspective, yes, greater liberty is the position to attain. Because the rights might be equal, but the liberty is not.

Again, built on the false premise that one's position has no need to budge.

See what I mean?  Apparently the side that expects uniform acceptance of a lifestyle the majority of Americans find immoral has no need to compromise at any level

Again, What you have described as the pre-compromise position seems like a list of things that people shouldn't have been doing in the first place.  It's sort of like suggesting the blacks need to compromise on what equal means in regard to civil rights. I don't see what it the homosexuals need to compromise.

It took alot longer for the ol "let's pull out the black card" tact.  Your problem is that this issue is NOTHING like Blacks compromising in civil rights, because A) this is NOT a civil rights issue, and B) Blacks have no choice in the skin color.  The use of Blacks in this discussion is nothing more than a fall back

When you can get back to me on some scientific gene mapping perhaps that shows is, once and for all, the homosexual gene, then we can start talking about this being a civil rights issue.  My guess is that it'll be found right next to the lying gene, and just above the stealing gene

[Universe Prince]

There is no inability to compromise on my part. I'm simply saying the insistence that homosexuals not be allowed to call their marriage a marriage seems a ridiculous sticking point.

To YOU, perhaps.  To those who have much greater appreciation for marriage, and what it traditionally stands for, not so much

You should not assume that your appreciation for marriage and what it traditionally stands for is greater than mine.

Again, built on the false premise that one's position has no need to budge.

You have yet to demonstrate that "premise" to be false.

It took alot longer for the ol "let's pull out the black card" tact.  Your problem is that this issue is NOTHING like Blacks compromising in civil rights, because A) this is NOT a civil rights issue, and B) Blacks have no choice in the skin color.  The use of Blacks in this discussion is nothing more than a fall back

It's called a comparison. No need to hyperventilate over it.

When you can get back to me on some scientific gene mapping perhaps that shows is, once and for all, the homosexual gene, then we can start talking about this being a civil rights issue.  My guess is that it'll be found right next to the lying gene, and just above the stealing gene

They are human beings. I am pretty sure that is in their genes. That is enough for me.

[Stray Pooch]

Excuse me, but can anyone point me to the verse in the Bible that specifically states that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman?

Marriage was established as the norm at creation.  (It is only logical - as in bio-logical, that ths would be so.  Propagation of the species works better with opposite sex couples.  Nature discriminates like all git-out.)

Gen 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh."

One MIGHT argue that gays can be "husband and wife" but Paul was pretty clear on the definition.  He himself apparently remained unmarried, and thought celibacy was a keen idea (to the everlasting discomfort of an awful lot of literal-minded Catholic priests).  But he recognized that celibacy wasn't particularly practical, and might even lead to sexual sins.  So he said:

1 Cor 7:2  "Nevertheless to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

It would be an awfully long stretch to suggest that this definition allowed for the possibility of same-sex marriage.  

In fact, however, your question is just so much semantical posturing.  It is pretty clear that the Bible (and most cultures in the world) define marriage as being a ceremonial joining of a couple the purpose of which (at least in social and species-propagation terms) is procreation.  

The question of whether homosexual marriage is wrong is one of morals.  The question of whether the people have the right to establish their own standards in a community, a state or this country is one of law.

[Stray Pooch]

There is no inability to compromise on my part. I'm simply saying the insistence that homosexuals not be allowed to call their marriage a marriage seems a ridiculous sticking point.

So you think that homosexuals are ridiculous for insisting that their unions be called a marriage?

[Religious Dick]

So do heterosexuals have the right to marry someone of the same gender?

Yes.

That's interesting. In which state is marriage between two heterosexuals of the same gender legal? I'd like to see you produce the law.

Interesting that the anti-government, pro-liberty "libertarians" support a massive, unwelcome, government intervention into the habits and customs of the people, one which creates obligations on the part of parties that aren't even signatories, and can't even name a single public interest to justify doing so. As I said, libertarians are good for patting themselves on the back for their consistent support of individual liberty, as long as they can keep quietly redefining individual liberty in support of whatever particular hobbyhorse they happen to be riding at the moment.

I have not redefined individual liberty. (And neither has any other libertarian for that matter.) Once again, you distort and attempt to misdirect. I'm not supporting government intervention. I'm supporting getting government out of the way. Your continued attempts to insist that libertarians support the opposite of what they actually support indicates you're either too foolish to understand or deliberately attempting to deceive.

And that's total bullshit. There currently is no law prohibiting gays or anyone else from making a *private* contract between themselves. The entire point at issue is access to a *public* institution, one which creates obligations on the part of other parties not signatories. In regard to private conduct and private contracts, the government is already out of the way.

Indeed. But then, there are no laws against homosexuals forming bowling teams or corporations. I'm not arguing that homosexuals should be given special or different privileges or fall under a different set of laws. In point of fact, I am arguing that they should simply be allowed to fall under the same set of laws as heterosexuals. So your counterargument is baseless.

They already do. They have the same right to get married as anyone else does. What they can't do is define to suit themselves what constitutes a marriage, any more than random members of society can define what constitutes an army, a corporation, or a parent. Those are all clearly defined associations.

Marriage, as a long standing custom, has a number of arguable benefits to society at large, not the least of which that it provides institutional support for a biological imperative - namely, that as mammals, we reproduce sexually. Given that there's no comparable benefit to gay relationships, the only argument available amounts to, "But mom, you let them do it!".

No, the argument is that the government should not be playing the part of the parent granting privileges to heterosexual couples because they're heterosexual. For a very long time, slavery had arguable benefits to society at large. By your thinking, the abolitionist argument is little more than "But mom, they get to be free!" That isn't the argument at all, and you know that full well, or you should by now.

Ah! The reducto ad servium argument! How did I know that was coming? Everything reduces to slavery!

Not in the least a valid comparison. I'm in no way advocating limiting anybody's freedom to act. I'm not advocating putting people in jail, preventing them from associating with who they want, or having sex with anyone they like, any way they like, or even preventing them from making any kind of private contract between themselves.

I'm simply pointing out that specific protections are granted to associations that have demonstrated effects on the public at large. Corporations are subject to a certain set of privileges and regulations because their actions have benefits have effects on the public at large. Bowling teams are not subject to any such legal recognition because their activities are of no interest to anyone than the parties immediately involved. Likewise, heterosexual relationships are given protections because the effects of those relationships (children) very much have an effect on the public at large, not to mention they have effects on the children themselves. Gay relationships have no public impacts other than to the immediate participants. Therefore, they have no claim on the protection of public law.

That's like arguing that because farmers get subsidies, we should give them to yoga teachers as well. While I'm not a fan of farm subsidies, I can at least see the rationale behind them. Food is a necessity. Yoga is not.

The argument for heterosexual marriage rests on a biological imperative. The only argument for gay marriage is one of equality, using a truly tortured definition of "equal". The arguments for heterosexual marriage stand on their own. Absent the existence of heterosexual marriage, what are the arguments for gay marriage?

No, the argument for allowing individuals to enter into a private contract with one another does not rest on sexual reproduction. The argument for allowing individuals to enter into a private contract with one another is that they are individuals who have a right decide for themselves to enter into a contract with another individual.

Exactly what prevents them from a *private* contract now? Distinguish - marriage is not a private contract. Marriage is a public institution that creates obligations on the part of non-signatory parties. It is not only a contract between the immediate parties, but a partnership with the public at large, as well. Unless you can make a case for a public interest that trumps the right of other individuals and institutions to use their discretion as to whether they wish to recognize other people's association, you certainly aren't advocating freedom.

[BSB]

>>Marriage is a public institution that creates obligations on the part of non-signatory parties.<<

And, if two men, or two women, have a marriage certificate, what happens to the obligations originaly created for a man and a women? They are passed on to the gay couples as well, are they not? 

[Henny]

The compromise solution to the gay marriage question is to make Civil Union the norm - for ALL people.

I could and would (and essentially do) support that.

Excellent point... and agreed. The "marriage" is religious and very personal. Those who wish to be married will do so in their own churches for their own reasons, and the Civil Union will be simply putting things down on paper to make it legal.

[sirs]

There is no inability to compromise on my part. I'm simply saying the insistence that homosexuals not be allowed to call their marriage a marriage seems a ridiculous sticking point.

To YOU, perhaps.  To those who have much greater appreciation for marriage, and what it traditionally stands for, not so much

You should not assume that your appreciation for marriage and what it traditionally stands for is greater than mine.

You're the one that apparently doesn't care squat about the term.  You've made that abundantly clear

Again, built on the false premise that one's position has no need to budge.

You have yet to demonstrate that "premise" to be false.

The premise is simple......homosexuality is either a choice or its not.  Without something more concrete than your "pretty sure", the notion that you have no reason to compromise has no foundation......outside of your say so, of course

It took alot longer for the ol "let's pull out the black card" tact.  Your problem is that this issue is NOTHING like Blacks compromising in civil rights, because A) this is NOT a civil rights issue, and B) Blacks have no choice in the skin color.  The use of Blacks in this discussion is nothing more than a fall back

It's called a comparison. No need to hyperventilate over it.

No hyperventilating over here.  Simply hilighting how invalid a comparison it is

When you can get back to me on some scientific gene mapping perhaps that shows is, once and for all, the homosexual gene, then we can start talking about this being a civil rights issue.  My guess is that it'll be found right next to the lying gene, and just above the stealing gene

They are human beings. I am pretty sure that is in their genes. That is enough for me.

Your "pretty sure" isn't enough to trump God's words, for me, I'm afraid.

[Universe Prince]

So you think that homosexuals are ridiculous for insisting that their unions be called a marriage?

Pretty sure that is not what I said. If we are talking about unions that are legally marriages in everything but name, then yeah I think the name is a battle that serves little purpose. But I understand it more from the homosexuals who think the name conveys legitimacy than from those who oppose it because the definition of the word as they understand it is something with which they cannot bear to part.

[Universe Prince]

That's interesting. In which state is marriage between two heterosexuals of the same gender legal? I'd like to see you produce the law.

You didn't ask me if it was legal. You asked me if heterosexuals had a right to marry someone of the same gender. In my opinion, a right is not the same as a legally allowed liberty. I've explained that to you already. Pay attention.

And that's total bullshit.

No, it's an honest refutation of your nonsense. If you don't like it, I don't care.

There currently is no law prohibiting gays or anyone else from making a *private* contract between themselves. The entire point at issue is access to a *public* institution, one which creates obligations on the part of other parties not signatories. In regard to private conduct and private contracts, the government is already out of the way.

You're not paying attention at all, are you? At least one person here (not me) has said homosexuals should be allowed civil unions that are marriages in all but name. I have argued that the obligations you're bitching about should not exist because the government shouldn't obligating itself that way to anyone in the first place. Your particular point of issue might be access to supposedly public obligations, but I am not advocating the government intervene to force more obligations. I am, as I said, arguing that the government get out of the way. Other folks seem to be fine with civil unions that amount to legal marriages in all but name. If you want to complain about obligations, talk to them, not me, but pay attention.

They have the same right to get married as anyone else does. What they can't do is define to suit themselves what constitutes a marriage, any more than random members of society can define what constitutes an army, a corporation, or a parent. Those are all clearly defined associations.

No they are not. Well, the Army might be, but while there are certain legal definitions of a corporation, with in that definition there are different kinds of corporations. And there are most certainly different kinds of parents. There is no reason there cannot be different kinds of marriages. And at the same time, the government should not be, imo, in the business of defining marriage.

Ah! The reducto ad servium argument! How did I know that was coming? Everything reduces to slavery!

It's a convenient and apt comparison. Get over yourself.

Not in the least a valid comparison. I'm in no way advocating limiting anybody's freedom to act.

Yes, it is, and yes, you are. You want to prevent them from being able to marry one another.

I'm simply pointing out that specific protections are granted to associations that have demonstrated effects on the public at large. Corporations are subject to a certain set of privileges and regulations because their actions have benefits have effects on the public at large. Bowling teams are not subject to any such legal recognition because their activities are of no interest to anyone than the parties immediately involved. Likewise, heterosexual relationships are given protections because the effects of those relationships (children) very much have an effect on the public at large, not to mention they have effects on the children themselves. Gay relationships have no public impacts other than to the immediate participants. Therefore, they have no claim on the protection of public law.

Assuming that the homosexuals do not adopt or in some other way decide to produce children, which is increasingly viable and likely. Which is why said assumption is a really bad one. But let me know when you advocate forcing heterosexual couples to legally and publically declare intent to have children before allowing the heterosexual couples to legally marry. Then maybe, maybe, you'd have a valid argument. Until then, you're still advocating unreasonable discrimination via the law against homosexuals.

That's like arguing that because farmers get subsidies, we should give them to yoga teachers as well. While I'm not a fan of farm subsidies, I can at least see the rationale behind them. Food is a necessity. Yoga is not.

Actually, my argument is more like arguing that the farmers shouldn't have subsidies either.

Exactly what prevents them from a *private* contract now? Distinguish - marriage is not a private contract. Marriage is a public institution that creates obligations on the part of non-signatory parties. It is not only a contract between the immediate parties, but a partnership with the public at large, as well. Unless you can make a case for a public interest that trumps the right of other individuals and institutions to use their discretion as to whether they wish to recognize other people's association, you certainly aren't advocating freedom.

Marriage is a private contract made by two private citizens. That the government has presumed to create laws resulting in some sort of public obligation is an issue with the government, not with homosexuals who seek to enter into private marriage contracts. And since you are the one making the argument that supposedly public interest trumps the rights of individuals, you are the one not advocating freedom. I'm not arguing that a marriage contract should obligate other people who are not signatories in any way. You, on the other hand, apparently are. And upon this basis, you insist then that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. You seem bound and determined to argue against freedom. I, however, am advocating that the government get out of the way and allow people to form private marriage contracts whether those people are heterosexual or homosexual. So, yes, in point of fact, I am advocating freedom.

[Universe Prince]

You're the one that apparently doesn't care squat about the term.  You've made that abundantly clear

That I don't care whether homosexuals can legally claim to be married in our secular society does not mean I don't care about the term. You're making assumptions.

Again, built on the false premise that one's position has no need to budge.

You have yet to demonstrate that "premise" to be false.

The premise is simple......homosexuality is either a choice or its not.  Without something more concrete than your "pretty sure", the notion that you have no reason to compromise has no foundation......outside of your say so, of course

I'm guessing that makes perfect sense to you. I don't recall saying the need to or not to compromise had anything to do with whether or not homosexuality was a choice.

They are human beings. I am pretty sure that is in their genes. That is enough for me.

Your "pretty sure" isn't enough to trump God's words, for me, I'm afraid.

My "pretty sure" was a bit of sarcasm. And I'm, ahem, pretty sure that there is nothing in the Bible that says homosexuals are not human beings. So my words don't have to trump God's words since I'm not contradicting God's words. And my point was not to whether or not homosexuality is a choice, but to homosexuals being human making them subject to civil rights considerations.