Why hold elections?
Prop.8 that passed in California was a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment to the California constitution. This means it is the supreme law of California and cannot be overturned except by the U.S. supreme court. They(CSC) have done it in the past(2006 I believe). The question I have for the readers out there is, what lame excuse will the California supreme court use to overturn the law they are instructed,BY THE PEOPLE, to enforce?
I am not sure how you feel on this subject, but to me the answer is simple. Marriage is a religious institution and its administration is controlled by each particular religion. When slaves were not allowed to marry, they still created a way to be "married". People throughout time have created ways to show that one person is bound to another for a lifetime, and never needed any paper from the government to tell them so. So why the push to have same sex "marriages" recognized by the government? Is it to get the same rights as a "married" couple?
Let's look at that. Hospitals are very lax when it comes to visitors these days due to the large number of un-wed couples and divorces, so as to accommodate this new "family" shift, they allow friends and family to visit, some only restrict the hours and times people can visit. What about legal matters? The right of inheritance? A will can easily remedy this and if the argument is that the blood relatives will fight it, well, that happens in traditional families as well, and adoption solves the problem of custody. So what is the real issue here for Homosexuals?
So many people co-habitate in a "family" situation, yet do not get married and they deal with these same issues, so the push for same sex marriage must have an underlying cause. That cause is acceptance. If you are forced to accept their "marriage" by law then they have the assumption you will have to accept their lifestyle, which means you will have to accept them.
The flaw in this theory is that we, as humans, are segregationists. We choose to associate, and live near, and with people who have the same interests and social parameters that we have. We each use certain criteria to chose persons of like interests and eliminate ones from our group who do not. These choices are guided by our likes and dislikes and our social beliefs. Be it religion, economic status, or a simple thing as who our favorite sports team is. A great example is just look at your local college team and who the rival is.
I am not a homosexual male, and would not prefer to hang around at a social gathering of homosexuals. I do like gardening, sports, cooking, and hunting. I would prefer to associate with someone from these categories and your sexual preference has nothing to do with planting trees, or will Carolina beat the spread this weekend.
Homosexuals are trying to use their sexuality to define who they are, and this is what makes persons with traditional values uncomfortable. It is my belief that an overwhelming majority of people could care less what someone does in the bedroom, they just don't want it shoved in their face every 20 seconds. You don't have to hide that you are Bob the gay man, just try to be Bob the Gardner first.
posted by davis14633 at 06:08
10 Comments:
Exceptionally well said. Thank You!
"I am not sure how you feel on this subject, but to me the answer is simple..."
And for me, as well: start shooting judges until they understand.
We're about to lose this country to the elitists, the power-hungry and the self-serving. We can hang a few politicians and judges now, or we can have a full-blown shooting war in a decade. Take your pick.
This "separate but equal" argument is bullshit, as the civil rights movement in the 60s demonstrated quite effectively. Just because someone can acheive the same legal results through different means does not mean that they have the same rights and privileges that everyone else enjoys. That's exactly the same argument once used against black people trying to find a seat on a bus.
Saying that marriage is a religious institution is introducing a complete irrelevancy into the argument. Marriage is a social institution, period. Whether it receives religious sanction matters not a whit. Marriage infers legal and social rights and benefits, and the argument that it is religious in nature and therefore out of the scope of goverment regulation does not hold water. If that is true, then why can a justice of the peace or a ship's captain perform marriages for aetheists?
The simple fact is that to deny any group the same rights and privileges that others enjoy is discrimination, plain and simple. Just because people have a tendancy to associate with those that they identify with does NOT give them the right to deny others access to the same benefits they enjoy themselves.
Additionally, just because the majority of people vote for discriminatory laws does not make them right. It is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the rights of minorities from the oppression of the majority. If a simple majority made things right, we would still be drinking from separate water fountains. "Activist judges" are needed when we have overactive legislative and executive branches overstepping their bounds. Otherwise, the entire idea of having checks and balances goes out the window. The entire reason judges are appointed rather than elected is to remove the pressure of popular opinion so that they can make unbiased decisions.
Also, people getting married is not "shoving their sexuality in your face". If you get an invitation to a gay wedding, then just don't go - the same course of action you would choose if you got a wedding invitation from some tree-hugging hippy that you personally don't happen to like.
In all the times I have heard this argument played out, I have never once seen a legitimate, logical argument for why gays should not be allowed to experience the same misery as the rest of us. Those against it always say they "don't care what happens in the bedroom", but if that were true then they wouldn't care what happened in the office of a justice of the peace either. It is nothing but the typical hypocrisy demonstrated by adherents to religion worldwide. The divorce rate is already around 50% in this country, so how can anyone claim to be any kind of authority on which marriages are right and wrong? Its a crap shoot anyway!
Live and LET LIVE.
It is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the rights of minorities from the oppression of the majority.
The premise of your argument is flawed in that it takes the position of the "Tyranny of the Majority". The pillar of this argument is that any election leads to the oppression of the minority. The position the minority advocated, was defeated and thus the will of the minority has been oppressed. Thus all elections are illegal because someone's "rights" are being violated.
NAMBLA's (North American Man/Boy Love Association) rights are being oppressed in that they wish to have sex and live with underage boys. Should we allow them to do this because they feel that their sexual proclivities are being oppressed by the majority?
My rights are suppressed every day because of gun laws. I may wish to own guns, but have to file paperwork and can be denied the right to own or carry in certain cities because of laws. This is the oppression of the majority. I also voted for candidates that didn't win, my view and right to be governed by who I chose has been oppressed. So as you can see, the "Tyranny of the Majority" argument cannot stand if applied across the board, because I'm sure you feel some of the votes that passed, and people that were elected this year was "the will of the people"
Secondly, comparing the "plight" of homosexuals to that of blacks is an insult to the civil rights movement in this country. Saying that not being able to call your union a marriage is on par with seperate bathrooms and lunch counters is a perversion of what the movement was all about, the freedom to be equal.
The simple fact is the homosexual movement has been trying to tie it's "rights" to the civil rights movement because they have not been able to move their agenda along on the basis of same sex marriage.
Now anonymous, am I going to change your mind on this? Probably not. The issue here is I want people to be informed and to hear that just because they, as the majority, do not wish to allow same sex marriage, they are not bad people on par with the KKK or aparthied Africa. It has been my experience that when a person starts calling someone else intolerant or discriminatory, it is because they cannot defend their position and have to shout down the opposition.
I am here to tell you that I will no longer be quiet and will speak out. I am not afraid to admit that I am a conservative and will no longer be bullied into silence any longer. It is time to shout it from the mountain top and convince people that the "silent" majority is ready to roar.
This isn't about homosexuality, this is about the rule of the people, which you might remember is the basis of the country. JUDICIAL REVIEW IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION AND WAS NEVER INTENDED BY THE FOUNDERS. It is an illegal power of government which was assumed by the courts, under their own auspices and for their own reasons, in Marbury v. Madison.
So now who are the tyrants?
Much of the basis of the original post was that for any two people living and cohabitating together, there currently exists the same benefits whether they are married or not. This is true for elderly people that are trying to reap the financial benefits of consolidating households, or for all the other reasons people might want to live together. It seems like the whiney gay people, that for some reason want some legal legitimacy attached to their cohabitation, are the only ones that can’t seem to live and let live. I will never hold that sexual preference is or should be a protected class, which is what the gays seem to aspire. It is a very different thing for people to be discriminated against due to their race, religion, etc… compared to people asking to have extra legitimacy assigned to their sexual preference. The logic of taking that argument to the extreme by pointing out that, what will be the worlds stand be when a group wants to have legal legitimacy when they want to marry and have sex with a 5 year old, is very valid. I have no doubt that another 50 years of this same line of thinking, and we will be listening to people arguing that point as well. While marriage is a concept from antiquity and probably evolved from virtual ownership of females to what it is today, it is a traditional and very reasonable place to draw the line in the sand and keep marriage to be between male and female due to the idea that typically that entails propagation of the species and provides for the legal umbrella under which children are named and who is held responsible for their safety and their actions until adulthood, adulthood being just another traditional line in the sand that in this country is considered 18 years old for many things and 21 for buying alcohol and firearms. I for one certainly do not believe that adoption of children by homosexuals, a group of people who are defined by their very focus on sexuality, is a reasonable household for children to be raised in due to the greater likelihood of sexual abuse. Even setting the greater likelihood of sexual abuse aside, children should be raised in a household where both genders are represented since they will need the training and input from both genders to operate more effectively in a world where you have to interact with both genders. This whole country’s fixation on sex is vastly out of hand due to its distraction from what should be mankind’s focus on scientific advancement and the betterment of mankind in general, but of course sex sells so you know where that will put everyone. If you don’t like my opinions and beliefs I don’t give a damn, I have the right to have them and not be discriminated against for having them, which is a legally protected right.
No one is asking anyone to accept homosexuality, but they ARE asking for the same rights that other people enjoy. Most gay people couldn't care less whether you "accept" them or not. As was stated earlier, marriage is a universal human desire that cannot truly be denied those that seek it or even universally defined. When someone applies for a marriage license and are told no based on a group identity, then it is our society making an issue of their sexual idenity, not them. They are being told, in effect, that they are not socially equal with everyone else. I have never heard any rational or logical reason why this should be the case in a free society.
Referring to NAMBLA is yet again introducing irrelevancies into the argument. Gay people are NOT pedophiles, regardless of the opinions some people may hold through ignorance. The NAMBLA argument does not apply whatsoever, since the law against the sexual abuse of children is applied EQUALLY to all citizens regardless of their race, gender or sexual preferences. The attempt to introduce pedophiles into this argument is a shameful use of misinformation to illicit an emotional response and only degrades the argument.
The argument about gun control is more relevant, so we will use that as an example. What if a law was passed forward that prohibited issuing a permit to own firearms to gay people? ..or members of a certain race? ..or gardeners? ;-)
The example is analogous, since the issue here is issuing permits for marriages. In that example, it would be a clear case of:
dis-crim-i-na-tion (from dictionary.com)
–noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
So, when someone is denied a right that others enjoy based SOLELY on their group identity, what else would you call it? THAT is what I call the tyranny of the majority, not legitimate laws that are applied EQUALLY. Again you have attempted to obfuscate the issue because your argument has no rational basis, or do you simply not understand the principle of "equal treatment under the law"?
Neither will I remain silent when I see an obvious case of discrimination and intollerance.
Most gay people couldn't care less whether you "accept" them or not First of all, I cannot stand someone who uses this phrase, because it means you could care less. Now to discredit your argument..again.
One: just because you say NAMBLA is irrelevant does not make it so. Sodomy, oral sex, and the use of devices were against the law in many states up until about 10-15 years ago. Many of these laws were overturned by judges after having been on the books for decades. This is not because they suddenly became unconstitutional, it is because judges saw a "shift" in moral values, and the "activist" judges "saw" that society had changed and thus changed the laws.
If homosexual behavior was once illegal, but now is accepted, then what is to stop another judge finding it a "right" for men to have sex with underage children?
Two: Just because you wish to get a marriage license does not mean you meet the criteria to qualify for one. The state of California, and many other states, have sought to define marriage as between a man and a woman, just as they require you to meet certain goals before you can drive,own a gun,teach,or many other things. If you suddenly became enamoured with the family pet, law says you do not have the right to marry it, and before you get your underwear in a bunch, I am NOT comparing Homosexual love to love of a pet or animal. By your argument, it is uncostitutional for the government to prevent you from driving, because you want to.
Finally: We as a society have chosen to make certain activities illegal(homosexuality is illegal in Iran, yet they still have Honor killings) and to protect certain institutions we hold dear. We, as a society have made the descision that marriage will be defined as between a man and a woman. Go get married if you wish, just choose a place that allows it.
What is to stop another judge finding it a "right" for men to have sex with underage children?
...and what is to stop an elected representative from introducing a law that retracts the existing one against child abuse?
The answer should hopefully be the same in both cases: REASON.
There is a REASON why everyone cannot get a driver's license: irresponsible driving can lead to severe injury, property damage and possibly even death not only to the driver but to innocent bystanders as well. There are reasons for the other restrictions you listed as well, most of which are obvious. Reason is exactly what the argument against allowing homosexuals to get married completely lacks. I have not yet seen any reason in this discussion as to the tangible social benefit of preventing homosexual marriage.
So, what is your REASON, sir, for denying a group of people access to a social institution that is nearly universal?
It has been repeatedly implied here that there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. If that were true, that would be a reason, since married couples that cannot have children often adopt. However, there is even less evidence to support that claim than there is to support anthropogenic global warming. At least environmentalists have a statistical correlation, albeit a coincidental one, that they can use as the foundation of their argument. Where is the statistical data that shows a higher percentage of child molestation cases are perpetuated by homosexuals than their population percentage? Without any data or proof supporting this claim, this argument is invalid. Moreover, it is a shameful attempt to use misinformation and to spread fear - nothing more than baseless propaganda that borders on libel.
You claim that homosexuals identify themselves by their sexual orientation, when it is in fact you and people like you that seek to define them based on that criterion by ADDING THAT DEFININTION to your State constitution. You are TAKING ACTION to prevent certain marriages, while they are simply trying to live their lives their own way and are harming no one in doing so. Yet YOU claim to be the one having THEIR view “shoved in their face every 20 seconds”? How does that work again?
You pointed out yourself that "people throughout time have created ways to show that one person is bound to another for a lifetime, and never needed any paper from the government to tell them so", yet then assert that we should pass legislation to restrict who is able to do this. That is blatant hypocrisy. The statement, "Saying that not being able to call your union a marriage is on par with separate bathrooms and lunch counters is a perversion of what the movement was all about, the freedom to be equal" is actually self-contradictory! Your logic is unsound and your rationalizations exist only to hide your intolerance.
You claim to be motivated by your desire "to protect certain institutions we hold dear", meaning marriage. What, exactly, are you "protecting" the institution of marriage from? It sounds to me like you are trying to enforce YOUR CONCEPT of marriage, based on "traditional values" taught by religious "authorities." Religion is no basis upon which to form an argument or enact legislation, as history repeatedly has shown the hypocrisy, intolerance and violence that religions perpetuate. Neither is the argument about majority consent a sufficient reason to impose an onerous restriction on a minority group. If that were the case, then what prevents passing legislation establishing a state religion? The majority of our population is Christian, but does that give them the right to ignore the First Amendment? According to your argument, it is!
If you want to "protect marriage", I suggest you take a more practical approach. Instead of preventing people from getting married based on their sexual orientation, how about preventing those convicted of committing domestic violence from getting married? Or, you could take a less restrictive approach and simply provide a criminal history report to those applying for a marriage license, so that they can make an informed decision? How about rescinding the practice of divorce? I can't think of a better way to protect marriage than to remove the mechanism by which it is undone! As an added bonus, that would put many lawyers out of a job!
You have yet to "discredit my argument" in this entire discussion. You claim that “by [my] argument, it is uncostitutional (sic) for the government to prevent you from driving, because you want to.” That is an intentional misstatement of my argument, since it omits any form of discrimination. If you had said “it is unconstitutional for the government to prevent those of your gender from driving” then it would have been a more accurate summary. However, your rebuttal is, once again, irrelevant to the point I am making. It is easy to “win” an argument when you ignore and misstate the point made by the other person, but it is intellectual laziness and proves nothing. I have repeatedly asserted that this position is discriminatory, and you have utterly failed to refute that point.
I have personally heard more than enough intolerance and fear mongering from people calling themselves “conservatives” while trying to force their views on others. True conservatives believe in the twin concepts of personal freedom and personal responsibility and also believe that the government should not interfere in the private lives of its citizens. If you want to enforce your judgmental religious views through the law, then move to an Islamic country where they do not believe in the separation of church and state as we do in this country.
Anonymous(#2)... you're my hero.
Post a Comment
<< Home