Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:You mischaracterize the issue at your peril. The people I know who are against this are not "homophobes." They firmly believe in the existing definition of marriage. Period. End of Story.

And, apparently, imposing that definition on the rest of the country. Which is pretty much the definition of bigotry.

Frazzled wrote:
If you brand antagonists as bigots, and homophobes, as has been done on this thread, then all you do is harden them against the issue, and others who were sitting on the fence. JohnHH has a point, immigrants are not nearly as tolerant on this issue. As California's immigrant population is skyrocketing, this could be the last window of opportunity unless you address all the arguments against it. Casting the entire Catholic Church as bigots and homophobes is not going to help that cause.

It is worth noting that the issue of bigotry did not come up until an anti-gay marriage poster presumed that our arguments with him necessitated that we consider him a bigot.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yeah, because precedent can never be overturned

So your point is that we can't allow homosexuals the legal rights of marriage because suit might be brought against a church, and precedent might be overturned? That's pretty flimsy, and completely irrelevant to the actual matter of giving homosexuals the same legal rights accorded to heterosexuals under the legal code.

focusedfire wrote:Oh yeah, to Sebster......you say it will come full circle and my argument is for naught......PROVE IT. Whats the harm doing it the way I suggest if your going to win.

I did prove it would come full circle. If use of the word ‘marriage’ is given over to churches and you allow them to marry whoever they want, some will marry gay people. At which point the word marriage will be used to describe gay marriages, and the tradition of ‘marriage = straight folk’ will be lost anyway. Print everything in capitals if you want, you still haven’t made any response to that point.

The harm in doing it that way is that it opposed a perfectly acceptable system that was already in place.

You suggest this argument is over protecting the meaning of a word and therfor has no merit. It's a word with a meaning and a belief behind it. Such words like freedom, the name of your country, God. History shows that people are willing to fight, even to the death, over words with a belief behind them. I meerly tried to offer up a solution that circumvents the likelyhood of the fight.

And you keep pretending it is just about the word. If that was the case there would be defence of marriage groups out there putting forward their own props, ones that allowed gay civil unions. Or ones that gave everyone civil unions, and let churches decide who they wanted to marry.

Except they don’t propose anything of the sort. They just oppose gay marriage systems that come along, using whatever justification seems to fit this time.

And as to your challenge AFTER I'd Signed off........how very Chivalrous. And the answer to your challenge, JohnHwang pretty much summed it up. You bore me and my HOT GAY lover wants cuddle time.

One of the good things about the internet is that comments stay up forever. So that you could read that message next time you logged on. Which you did. And then you’ve still failed to provide a reference to anyone, anywhere, forcing a church to marry people it didn’t want to marry. Which means your claim is still without any merit. But you’ll go on believing it, because you want to believe that very bad things will happen if gay marriage is allowed.

Frazzled wrote:I do believe John is an attorney, and is thus fully versed in the concept of stare decisis. Thank you for provided your wise insight though Sebster

Given the level of legal knowledge exhibited by I find it very hard to believe that John is an attorney. He mischaracterised a fundamental statute. He believes the courts are wildly unpredictable, and thinks landmark cases overturning precedent somehow prove that. If he’s a lawyer… well.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yeah, because precedent can never be overturned

Yeah, and landmark cases heralded with years of political debate will overturn previous precedent. These cases are heralded with years of political debate, and multiple decisions on similar issues. There is no debate on forcing churches to marry people they don’t want to. In all similar areas courts have consistently ruled that freedom of religion allows churches to do things that would be deemed unfair discrimination in other areas.

Meanwhile, you argued that is was a guess whenever anything went to court. See the difference?

Frazzled wrote:You mischaracterize the issue at your peril. The people I know who are against this are not "homophobes." They firmly believe in the existing definition of marriage. Period. End of Story.

If you brand antagonists as bigots, and homophobes, as has been done on this thread, then all you do is harden them against the issue, and others who were sitting on the fence.

Except this issue has history, and that history shows people opposing gay rights on whatever grounds are needed to justify opposition this time around. What is needed is not to give pretend legitimacy to yet another anti-gay marriage talking point, but to get to the bottom of why people are willing to believe each piece of nonsense as it comes along.

Show it for what it really is, and see if people are really comfortable with their beliefs, once the artifice has been stripped away.

JohnHH has a point, immigrants are not nearly as tolerant on this issue. As California's immigrant population is skyrocketing, this could be the last window of opportunity unless you address all the arguments against it. Casting the entire Catholic Church as bigots and homophobes is not going to help that cause.

You really need to take a step back, fraz. No-one at any point in this thread has cast the entire Catholic Church as bigots. You’re arguing against people that aren’t here, for reasons no-one understands. Just take deep breath, re-read the thread and start again.

over and out

Again with that ridiculous false argument claiming that allowing a homosexual the right to marry a person of the opposite sex is somehow equal to allowing me to marry a person of the opposite sex. How can you believe that? If it was the opposite, you darn well know you wouldn't be equally treated. If people were only allowed to marry people of the same sex, you or I would certainly be at a disavantageous position vis a vis marriage compared to (e.g.) Bishop Gene Robinson.

Sebster, thank you for your efforts to enlighten my countrymen. Sometimes I'm pretty ashamed of them.

over and out

You can marry the consenting adult with whom you wish to have a state-sanctioned commitment. Bishop Robinson does not enjoy the same privilege. Your spouse automatically gets visitation rights if you are hospitalized and incapacitated. The same does not hold true for a homosexual couple in most states.

The law is unequal.

Civil Unions are certainly an acceptable concept if they replace Marriage in the legal lexicon and apply to both straight and gay unions. Though there are literally thousands of places in state and Federal laws, and in private company policies, where the word "marriage" is used. It'd be much more practical to allow our homosexual citizens the same rights we have, using the same word, as it would not then necessitate changes of wording for everything dependent on/connected to Marriage.

Again, we're talking about giving those amongst this subset of our populace, who WANT to be married, access to the same rights and problems you and I have access to in adding state sanction to our relationships with the women we love. Access which is denied these people now.

You're not protecting marriage by preventing loving couples from participating in it because they happen to be gay. If you want to protect the concept of marriage, try to outlaw 24hr wedding chapels. Or divorce. Or protest tabloids and tabloid news shows' reporting of the cheapening and degradation of this great insitution by spoiled and selfish celebrities

Mannahnin wrote:Sebster, thank you for your efforts to enlighten my countrymen. Sometimes I'm pretty ashamed of them.

Thanks, but I don’t think we’ve gotten anywhere yet. You can discredit every argument that comes up, but they'll just move on to the next. Just now dogma has moved on to the ‘they have the same rights’ argument. The idea that I can marry the person I love, while a gay person can only marry a person from a gender they are not attracted to doesn’t register, because John doesn’t think about these talking points, he just accepts them.

I think ultimately you can’t stop someone believing something they want to believe by discrediting individual arguments. As long as they want to believe they’ll accept argument after argument without questioning any of them. Meanwhile talking heads and talkback radio hosts can invent new rationalisations faster than we can disprove them… what has to change is people’s willingness to swallow these arguments. Besides, after this thread they’ll ignore the counter-arguments and just start believing each rationalisation all over again.

What needs to be discussed is exactly why someone would believe any of these arguments. If people can get to the core of why they want to believe these arguments against gay marriage, then they can accept their beliefs on those terms or not.

So the question then is what core reasons do people have for opposing gay marriage. I think a couple of people have assumed that I mean what must be at the core of their opposition is bigotry, despite me saying that isn’t all it could be. Bigotry is certainly an issue, but I doubt it’s even the biggest factor.

I suspect a lot of it is just a reflexive resistance to social liberal movements, it’s supported by them durn liberals so it must be wrong and I’ll figure out why later… ooh – it might force churches to marry people it doesn’t want to? That sounds awful!

I think traditional conservatism plays a part as well. Not wanting to change anything that doesn’t obviously need changing. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, and it is quite easy to see this as being very important… as long as you never meet a gay person denied visitation rights to their sick lover because they were never able to formally marry. But plenty of folk don’t know many (or any) gay people, and so might not be all that switched on to how their lives are made harder by not having access to gay marriage.

And ultimately, it can’t be denied that homosexuality is taught as a sin in many churches. While most folk will concede that their religious idea of sin is not a good way to decide law, it does predispose them to believing other arguments about why a cause might be wrong.

So I think that’s about the only way anything will get achieved in this thread, but I have no idea how to start doing it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:As I've already stated:
1. Homos have the same legal rights to one man-one woman marriage as heteros. And them some, because they have "hate crime" protection.

Yes, that's right, couch your argument in sexual slurs. That's sure to make it more convincing. Regardless, your point is without merit. Heterosexuals have the freedom to marry who they choose, within the stipulations of consent which govern all legal contracts, homosexuals do not.

In any case, hate crime legislation has nothing to do with additional rights. It only provides for increased punishment when the universal rights of a given group are infringed upon. Now, I'm no great fan of increased punishment, but if you're going to argue against something at least do it properly.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
2. Dred Scott (and Plessy) were hotly debated landmark cases, but still ultimately overturned.

Just because those cases were overturned it does not follow that all precedent will be so treated.

over and out

JohnHwangDD wrote:Of *course* the law is unequal.

That's the point of law, to create and amplify distinction to the "betterment" of society as a whole. The idea that the law should be equal or identical is ludicrous in the extreme. That is why we say that Justice is blind, and in a legally valid marriage, we only have the minimalist requirement of one man and one woman. When you really break it down, the law primarily exists to protect the "haves" from the "have nots", so you don't have society overrun with lawless squatters and thieves and so forth.

For example, who are the biggest drain on societal resources? Married couples with children. Do they pay more, per capita or per dollar earned?

HELL NO!

They get additional tax breaks on the non-working spouse, the children, the house, etc. Plus, they qualify for extra things like free public schooling and subsidized state college. Is that "fair"?

Of course not!

So we’ve quickly stepped from ‘everyone can get married! (just not to a person you’re attracted to unless you’re straight)’ and smoothly into ‘marriage is about children’ so society is right to only provide its benefits to straight couples’.

This argument ignores the fact that getting married doesn’t mean having kids, it provides the full range of benefits even when one partner is infertile, or if the couple doesn’t want to have kids. If you want to properly allocate resources to promote procreation, you provide resources to people having kids – make hospital care for childbirth free, for instance.

It also ignores the advantages inherent to marriage that don’t require any subsidy from society at all, such as deathbed access. It is also built around the assumption that people need financial incentive to have children, which is just plain odd.

It is another silly argument. And yet it is also accepted unquestioningly…

Correct, and we never will. This is pure opinion poll, not some kind of consensus-building project. It's like trying to tell someone that liking chocolate is intrinsically better than liking vanilla (mint is actually the best). Or that Pepsi is somehow superior to Coke (it isn't).

No, arguments over rights are no purely subjective. Aren’t you meant to be a lawyer… do you think legal cases are popularity contests?

Actually, in this argument, John has merely chosen an aggressively argumentative style that demonstrates the very same elitist contempt that the Liberals show for non-Liberals and shoves it back in their faces. It's really annoying when people talk down to you, right? So if you want to stop, I'll stop, too. But quite frankly, I'm sufficiently annoyed with the whole Liberal approach to argument, that at this point it hardly matters what I believe, only that I continue to argue the "Con" side of the debate as Devil's Advocate.

Just as a tip, it should be liberal, small ‘l’. Using a capital denotes a formal political party, and many Liberal parties around the world are nothing like the group you’re trying to address. For instance, in Australia the Liberal party is socially very conservative, and does not support gay marriage.

And yeah, it probably is annoying when people down to you. It’s also annoying when people are disingenuous, or fail to check their political views for reasonableness. I’ve been trying to give people the level of courtesy their political views deserve. At no point have I given the false courtesy of pretending anyone’s view is better considered than it really is. If an argument is silly, I will say so.

While that may appear rude, it’s really just being honest and saving time. No point filling up more space with ‘have you considered’ and ‘what about’.

The core reason is very simple: gay "marriage" - isn't. And no matter how you dress it up, with however much lipstick you paint on, it's still a damn pig. And you will never convince people otherwise.

Back to ‘marriage’ as a traditional term I see. Haven’t seen this argument for a page, so I guess it was due for another mention.

I'm an atheist, so I could care less what is taught in any church. I understand the Biblical argument, and am willing to consider that it (along with all the other Old Testament / Kosher / Hasidic rules) might even be valid if you live as a small desert commune, rather than modern society as we currently know it.

Then that point is less likely to apply to you. You aren’t the whole of the anti-gay marriage demographic.

over and out - I'm done. Have fun.

Ad hominem is always the way to go.

Mannahnin wrote:Again with that ridiculous false argument claiming that allowing a homosexual the right to marry a person of the opposite sex is somehow equal to allowing me to marry a person of the opposite sex. How can you believe that? If it was the opposite, you darn well know you wouldn't be equally treated. If people were only allowed to marry people of the same sex, you or I would certainly be at a disavantageous position vis a vis marriage compared to (e.g.) Bishop Gene Robinson.

Sebster, thank you for your efforts to enlighten my countrymen. Sometimes I'm pretty ashamed of them.

His "enlightenment" strategy of calling people who disagree will only harden hearts. This is not the way to do it. Sending packages of white powder to the Mormon cChurch is not the way to do it. All you will do is lose support on the issue with that strategy.

I'm pretty pro-yeseveryoneshould paymassivelegalexpenses on this issue. But the responses have even ticked me off. When you put the hardcore elements out there it drives back moderates who would otherwise support you.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You mischaracterize the issue at your peril. The people I know who are against this are not "homophobes." They firmly believe in the existing definition of marriage. Period. End of Story.

And, apparently, imposing that definition on the rest of the country. Which is pretty much the definition of bigotry.

Frazzled wrote:
If you brand antagonists as bigots, and homophobes, as has been done on this thread, then all you do is harden them against the issue, and others who were sitting on the fence. JohnHH has a point, immigrants are not nearly as tolerant on this issue. As California's immigrant population is skyrocketing, this could be the last window of opportunity unless you address all the arguments against it. Casting the entire Catholic Church as bigots and homophobes is not going to help that cause.

It is worth noting that the issue of bigotry did not come up until an anti-gay marriage poster presumed that our arguments with him necessitated that we consider him a bigot.

You're full of it Dogma. The pro-marriage for everyone crowd is attempting to change the definition. Thats fine. Do it. But attacking others who may or may not disgree with you-calling them bigots does nothing but lose support of the moderates.

I'm done with this thread. People can't have a reasoned debate without being called bigots then why even have OffTopic?

Sending packages of white powder to the Mormon cChurch is not the way to do it. All you will do is lose support on the issue with that strategy.

Quite right. You should stick to legal means like a boycott of services or similar. No one could possibly find anything wrong with....hmm.....hold on ! Any minute now people will be complaining that it's unfair through long winded posts on the internet ! Honestly what is the world coming too !

JohnHwangDD wrote:In California? Actually, it's worse. State law apparently is meaningless, which is why 3 Liberal Activist Judges were able to overturn state law banning gay "marriage" and then to rewrite the law without any input from the Millions of citizens in the state.

Oh yeah, this another argument. We've almost got the full set, if anyone is counting at home. You see, this can't be decided by judges because if they disagree with your own POV they're liberal activists and undemocratic. This instead has to be decided at the ballot (where predictably enough they'll vote against it because of one of the other reasons).

Also, given that we're talking about a boycott in the US, what "Liberal" means outside of our country is uttterly irrelevant.

Liberal means something quite different to liberal, like Conservative means something quite different to conservative. It's hardly groundbreaking or devestating information, and I thought you might like to know it for future reference. Guess not.

Finally, while you may think you're being polite, you demonstrate the typical Liberal elitist contempt for those that you argue against. After your side demonized anyone opposed to gay "marriage" as hateful bigot homophobes, what did you expect? Kumbaya, we love you all?

I don't think I'm being polite, I said so in my last post. You need to read more closely.

I never called anyone here a bigot. One poster suggested he must be, and I said it was possible. I've also said it is a reason to oppose gay marriage, but not the biggest reason. No-one else has even gone that far. But you've decided to play the martyr card and pretend people are calling you and the other gay marriage people bigots. It's kind of pathetic.

Frazzled wrote:I'm done with this thread. People can't have a reasoned debate without being called bigots then why even have OffTopic?

No-one has called anyone a bigot. But apparently people can't stay in an argument without playing the martyr card and pretending they're getting attacked. Woeful, fraz, woeful.

His "enlightenment" strategy of calling people who disagree will only harden hearts. This is not the way to do it.

Sending packages of white powder to the Mormon cChurch is not the way to do it. All you will do is lose support on the issue with that strategy.

And now posting on the internet is being likened to faking a terror attack. Do you have any shame at all?

I'm pretty pro-yeseveryoneshould paymassivelegalexpenses on this issue. But the responses have even ticked me off. When you put the hardcore elements out there it drives back moderates who would otherwise support you.

You're not moderate. Don't pretend. You posted a thread complaining about the harms done to the Mormon community, talking about people suggesting boycott. Suggesting. Meanwhile, after Blacks and Jews, Homosexuals are the most common victims of hate crime. If you consider it per capita, they're the most likely to be attacked for being who they are. But that's not the sort of thing a moderate should worry about, he should post threads talking about the sudden increase in kids on the internet suggesting boycotts.

You're right. I'm not a moderate, even though I said I supported the rights of gays to marry, even though I put forth a Constitutional argument on why the US Con already protected gays in this area and would be used to strike down any such legislation. But I'm not a moderate.

You did succeed in driving me from this thread. I'll likely leave the OT board for your mutual admiration society except in my capacity as MOD of course.

Frazzled wrote:You're right. I'm not a moderate, even though I said I supported the rights of gays to marry, even though I put forth a Constitutional argument on why the US Con already protected gays in this area and would be used to strike down any such legislation. But I'm not a moderate.

You did succeed in driving me from this thread. I'll likely leave the OT board for your mutual admiration society except in my capacity as MOD of course.

Yeah, that's right, you're the victim. You accused other people of calling your side bigots, and when asked to back that up you take your ball and go home.

Frazzled wrote:You're right. I'm not a moderate, even though I said I supported the rights of gays to marry, even though I put forth a Constitutional argument on why the US Con already protected gays in this area and would be used to strike down any such legislation. But I'm not a moderate.

You did succeed in driving me from this thread. I'll likely leave the OT board for your mutual admiration society except in my capacity as MOD of course.

No one called you or anyone else in this thread a bigot. No one on this board supports violence, or fake terror attacks.

When you make these comparisons, you are drawing false equivalencies between MY actions and opinions and those of other people. That's a false argument. You appear to be misunderstanding and mischaracterizing Sebster, Dogma’s, and my positions, in a way which allows you to avoid the real points. John did the same thing, at more length and with even more false premises contained in his (several) arguments.

I’m sorry that challenges to misinformation and false arguments feel unpleasant to you. I’m sorry it somehow feels like an attack. I suspect it’s because you’re a fundamentally decent person, and when you give the issue further examination you’re going to see that you’re supporting an injustice. I think it’s your conscience which is making you uncomfortable.

Just a few rejoinders then I’m done:

Yep no characterization of the anti-marriage side as bigots at all:

I'm not convinced you're a bigot. You're experimenting with a lot of arguments to justify opposing gay marriage, and most of them suffer from bizarre prioritisation (favouring a definition over human rights, for instance) but you're not necessarily a bigot.

Here, here. To each his own. You get all kinds of slogans, arguments, and mantras but when you dig really deep it still boils down to homophopia. The generation before ours was race and this is just a new segment in our society to single out as being not"like us".

Except that basically what you are saying is that heterosexual love, and by extension heterosexual marriage, is superior to homosexual love. There's a short jump from that position to homophobia and bigotry.

And, apparently, imposing that definition on the rest of the country. Which is pretty much the definition of bigotry.

To Ragnar’s point about my position:

Mannahnin wrote:I’m sorry that challenges to misinformation and false arguments feel unpleasant to you. I’m sorry it somehow feels like an attack. I suspect it’s because you’re a fundamentally decent person, and when you give the issue further examination you’re going to see that you’re supporting an injustice. I think it’s your conscience which is making you uncomfortable.

You better hope you're wrong because we're on the same side Ragnar-people keep thinking that because I'm against selective targeting of the Mormon church I'm against the topic. My post from the Marriage thread celebrating how the Consitution already protects the right of gays to marry:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

So class-equal protection found here
right to proerty found here
marriage has been viewed legally as, among many things including a right pain in the butt, to be a contractual property right.

Roll to Hit with the Great US Constitution Melta Cannon of Liberty


Roll to Penetrate with the Great US Constitution Melta Cannon of Liberty


Roll damage with the Great US Constitution Melta Cannon of Liberty


Result: Destruction of the forces of Tyranny






SCORE A DIRECT HIT!


Witty reposte

You're a good guy, JF.

I still think those few comments are not representative of the vast majority of substantive discussion and sincere and honest argument presented by Sebster and Dogma.

Quick note back on your comments about people you know who are not homophobic, but believe in the traditional definition (one man, one woman) without any other basis for their political position.

It’s worth noting again that throughout most of history marriage has been a legal contract at least as much as it has been a religious ceremony, and not all cultures have believed in “one man, one woman” as the only option. Early Irish Brehon law, for example, had nine different degrees of marriage, all designed to carefully spell out property and clan rights, responsibility for children, and marital duties. First degree was between a man and a woman of equal social rank and property. Ninth was community recognition of a relationship between two insane or mentally-incompetent people. Marriage between more than two people was also allowed for.

If what you’re really against is the selective targeting of the Mormon church, why haven’t you responded to the arguments on that point? If a particular church makes a huge financial contribution to an unjust cause, why shouldn’t people call them out on their misdeed and attempt some LEGAL means of sanction? No one here supports sending white powder, but what on earth is wrong with protesting or boycotting? Sebster demolished most of what was said in the article in his first post.

1. yes-property rights indeed-thats what drives the Constitutional argument. Property rights, and by extension rights of contract, are protected equally under the Constititution. So the pro-marriage side really does have a leg to stand on as it were, and we've seen this phraseology used to strike down laws in the past.

2. I did argue the Mormon issue (I posted the original post)-note this is page 9 of a discussion that has meandered.

3. You only have to say bigot once to shut down a discussion. its like calling someone a Nazi. At that point you might as well leave the discussion (which I should have and will now).

1. Here we’re in complete agreement. I think the 14th Amendment is the controlling factor too.

2. As I just said, Sebster went over the article comprehensively on the first page of the discussion. You made no response to his points; your next three posts were an Austin Powers quote, cheering on a side discussion between Dr. Thunder and Mekniakal, and “Mormons are being picked on because they are the only non-leftward group of the bunch. Hence the attacks, the mailing of suspicious powders, etc. “, which is a crap argument and honestly kind of an insulting non-response to Sebster, Ozymandius, Sutekh, Dogma, and Mekniakal’s reasonable points on the first page.

3. Why would you leave it now that we’re having a better dialogue?

You and I are having a better dialogue.

Initially I wanted to just post the thread for discussion.

Here's my view on the whole thing and its too clear to be revised:

Frazzled wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Mekniakal wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:To me, the core issue is this: When you use a democratic process to resolve differences, what is the appropriate response when you win, and what is the appropriate response when you lose?

I think it is a basic requirement in a democracy for both sides to be willing to accept the results graciously.

In this case, I think the soft response is usually the more effective one. I think adopting a response of hate will hurt the anti-8 groups cause more then it will help it.

You realize Prop-8 was an initiative to repeal a law that was decided, right? The anti-gay groups didn't like the ruling, and fought it again. It will be struck down as unconstitutional, and the Mormons have wasted $20 million dollars that could have spent helping people instead of hating them.

Also, the majority cannot vote to limit the civil rights of a minority. What Prop-8 is trying to do is legislate discrimination into the state's constitution. It will be struck down by the Supreme Court because that's their job. They have to ensure the legality of a law, and one that flagrantly violates the rights of a minority is blatantly illegal.

Of course I understand that this issue is very important to a lot of people on the anti-side, and I hope they understand that it is equally important to many people on the pro-side.

I don't think much can be gained by demonizing the people on the other side. All that does is polarize the issue and make civil discourse nearly impossible to acheive.

I think it is important to point out, however, that using the courts instead of ballots creates bad feelings, because it subverts the democratic process. I think the proper way to effect change is through a vote, not by getting the courts to rule in your favor. That's only my opinion, of course.

It would be interesting to see a court attempt to rule a part of the constitution unconstitutional, since that would be beyond their authority.

Exactly on all counts!!!

Excelsior DR!

Doesn't the supremacy clause mean that the alteration of the CA State Constitution can be struck down under the 14th Amendment?

The CA ballot initiative thing is pretty weird. Allowing a simple majority vote to subvert the protection of minority rights seems contrary to the principles of our Republic.

1. In this instance you're spot on. 14th Amendment, if applicable in this instance, ist uber alles over the state constsitution. In general state constsitutions may be more conservative, but can't trump fed law thats constitutional (or the Constitution). US Constitution-smiting the oppressor for two centuries.

2. I'm not sure on whther the ballot revised the state constitution, eliminated a state law, or something else. Remember, in many states, changing the state constitution is as easy as a politician flip flopping.

Dogma you are correct in that we are arging for basically the same thing. Just fundementally different approaches. The problem with prop 8, as I understand the history of it, is that the people of California have repeatedly voted against gay "marriage" by a pretty wide margin. So some of the stronghold cities tried to circumvent state law with local ordinance. The state stepped in and said the marriages wouldn't be legal. I believe the first version of prop 8(think it had a different name, will check on it) was passed restricting marriage.Then came the suit where the courts supported the right to benefits without a terminology change and overturned the law restricting "marriage".The majority of people in california felt that the courts over stepped its boundries, hence prop 8.

I understand the concept of tyrrany of the masses is wrong. But, its a democratic process. Is tyrrany of the minority any better? Where a small group gets to ride rough shod over the will of the majority propped up by the court and a heavily armed government. Sounds like a way of starting a lot of civil unrest and strengthening an already too powerful governmental structure.

This entire argument is about hurt feelings and takes an unecessarily advessarial approach, if it had been approached logically it would have been over years ago. Remember the old saying of careful for what you wish for. Thats how you solve this situation. Give the religious right what they want. Support the move to have marraige made a 100 percent purely religious term, instead of the question mark it is now due to court cases questioning the meaning. Once that happens by federal law the term marriage would have to be pulled off of the documentation that the government hands out. With new terminology the religious right has no legal leg to stand on in the opposition of Gay rights to benefits. AND while your waiting for the terminology change, you found a new temple of Delphi, Zues or some other occult clap trap that Gay Marraige is a part of its beleif structure.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you pay taxes the you should get the equal benefit, but not at the expence of violating a groups constitutional right. If you say its only their belief, well ,doma you know that beliefs are hard to change but ideas on the other hand.... I seek to subtley replace the belief with the idea which given the nature of our populace will become the new belief very shortly. You can go for the solution or be a part of the problem, your choice.

This entire argument is about hurt feelings and takes an unecessarily advessarial approach, if it had been approached logically it would have been over years ago. Remember the old saying of careful for what you wish for. Thats how you solve this situation. Give the religious right what they want. Support the move to have marraige made a 100 percent purely religious term, instead of the question mark it is now due to court cases questioning the meaning. Once that happens by federal law the term marriage would have to be pulled off of the documentation that the government hands out. With new terminology the religious right has no legal leg to stand on in the opposition of Gay rights to benefits. AND while your waiting for the terminology change, you found a new temple of Delphi, Zues or some other occult clap trap that Gay Marraige is a part of its beleif structure.

Thing is though it seems to me, and I'm guessing a lot of the other posters arguing for gay "marriage" that the real issue wasn't the "sanctity of marriage" itself that the religious right (?)/left/whatever -- in this case the Mormons-- were really arguing about.

See the advert here. If you watch it and listen to it, what the actual objection is 9(or seems to be anyway) is that by allowing the term of marriage to be changed ........ homosexuals will suddenly be able to adopt. You know, one of the rights that "regular" married folks can do. Oh, and the fact that homosexuals can get married might possibly be mentioned in a childrens book. On a single occasion. No doubt to "... yeah, and ?" responses from the children

I'll stress here again : so far all the posters arguing "for" the Mormon side as such-- like Messrs. Frazell and Gen.Lee.Losing have already stated that they have no problem with the application of FULL rights to homosexual couples, which would include, presumably anyway ?-- access to adoption as well as the aforementioned deathbed access, monetary entitlements and responsibilities etc etc.

What's being said is that this whole " We just want marriage to be left alone" argument is-- from the churches perspective anyway, I make no claims with regards to posters/similar arguing-- is really a sham to cover up what is still an attempt to restrict the rights of homosexual couples.