Prop 8: Good for Democracy; Bad for Marriage

Friend of and valuable contributor to this blog, A.I., posted a comment on the Prop. 8 case before the California Supreme Court. It seemed to me that with all the attention I reproduce it in whole here:

Ken. It appears one of us will eventually have gloating rights over our arguments regarding laws against same sex marriage being discriminatory. I refer to the Ted Olsen/Davide Boies (unlikely duo extraordinaire) case being brought in federal court in California to strike down Prop. 8.

In part, they will argue what has been more-or-less my point all along, that: "Prop. 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of second-class citizens." Of course, that is only part of the case.

So will you or will you not gloat if your opinion prevails in this case. I should be a big enough person to say I will not gloat should my side prevail--I should be, but...

A.I.: I am not sure I earn any gloating rights here, and I am in no mood to gloat. The CA Court by a 6 to 1 vote did indeed uphold Proposition 8, which restricted marriage in California to a union of a man and a woman. As I understand the decision, it turned entirely on a procedural question concerning what kind of amendment is valid under the state constitution. . The Court ruled that Prop. 8 "was a limited constitutional amendment, not a wholesale revision that would have required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to be placed before voters." That hardly validates my position, nor does it contradict yours.

I continue to say that your argument is wrong for the simple reason that it is logically incoherent. The other sex marriage restriction applies in exactly the same way to all citizens of California. For that reason it cannot be said to "single out gays and lesbians." Singling out is logically exclusive of equal applicability.

Consider an example: Marriage is sometimes used for other purposes than a loving union. Sometimes immigrants marry only in order to gain legal residence in the United States. What if two women wished to marry not because they were a homosexual couples, but only so one partner could extend her public insurance benefits to the other? They would be barred from marriage under the law even though they are neither gay nor lesbian. Therefore: no singling out.

This is a matter of simple logic. If no A is B, then all A are not B. If A stands for any person, and B stands for persons legally allowed to marry someone of the same sex, then under Prop. 8., all A are not B. There is no way that "all A" singles out "some A".

The people of California, including 70% of Blacks and 53% of Hispanics, admire traditional, i.e., opposite sex marriage and want to keep it at that. You admire same sex marriage just as much, and wants it to be legal, but I do not see you arguing for other possible forms of marriage, such as polygynous or polyandrous marriage. Those who believe in such forms, for religious or other reasons, probably see you as singling them out for disfavored status. What you want is for the Courts to bless your sentiments and not those of California's Black and Hispanic (excuse me, Latino) populations. There are no constitutional grounds on which to do so.

But if the passing and sustaining of Proposition 8 was good in terms of constitutional law, it was not good, I think, for the institution of marriage. The Court made it rather clear that all the tangible benefits of marriage have to be available to same sex couples (in effect singling out radical Mormons and polygynous Islamists). That means the creation of an institution parallel to marriage with all of the same legal consequences. I think that dilutes marriage and renders it less meaningful. That is one of the reasons I am in favor of same sex marriage. I think it would support rather than diminish the importance of this very important institution.

So as I said, A.I., I am not in any mood to gloat.

Comments

[fern]

"Consider an example: Marriage is sometimes used for other purposes than
a loving union."
Sometimes???
Marriage is a civil contract in which sometimes love is involved and it's been so throughout history, when Prejean will marry, will she marry an out of work dude like Palin's old boyfriend?
I think that showing her wares in such a contest proves that she will "fall in love" with the richest party she can find.

"The people of California, including 70% of Blacks and 53% of Hispanics, admire traditional, i.e., opposite sex marriage".

They do not admire, they just don't know any better, they more than other people have been brainwashed by the Christian religion, they are the less educated and usually the poorest part of our society. Heterosexual people with higher education tend to accept same sex marriage.

In conclusion: prop8 is all bad a shame for California and a shame to the United States.

[bluprntguy]

Congratulations! Someone understands the court's decision. Voters were all concerned about kids being taught that two men could get married, that they passed Proposition 8. Guess what? The court ruled that now, kids won't have to be taught that two men can get married. Instead, they must be taught that a man and a woman can get married, and that two men get Domestic Partner'd. Guess what else? They get taught that Domestic Partnerships are EXACTLY the same as marriage and deserve all the same rights, responsibility and respect. Guess what else, if the state can't bestow the same respect on Domestic Partnership as they do on Marriage, Marriage will be eliminated. Congratulations on 'protecting marriage'!!!!!! Great Job!!!!

[Miranda]

Fern,

I am a college graduate from a middle class family. My grandmother graduated from Northwestern and was a very gifted special education teacher. Both of us voted for Prop 8, because we respect traditional marriage. My Dad, who is a Stanford graduate, would have voted for it as well, if he had still lived in California.

But maybe you're right. Maybe we just aren't educated enough. You seem to have a lot of knowledge on the subject, so I'd be interested in hearing your ideas on why gay marriage is a good thing.

I'd also really like to see the data you drew those statistics on education and views on homosexuality from, if you have it handy.

[KB]

The figures on ethnic support for Prop 8 were mine. They come from a CNN exit poll, which makes them somewhat suspect. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/05/state/n111547S31.DTL. The very high number for African-American support of Prop. 8 was embarrassing to the Left, and it was attacked as inaccurate. But even revised estimates put the number near sixty percent.

Like Miranda, I find Vern's comments remarkably elitist. Apparently only well-educated people's opinion counts, which means of course, people who are well off. I suspect that when one scratches the surface of a lot of folks on the left you see underneath a twenty-four karat snob.

[Michael D.]

To the author of this blog:

Your point is illogical. What you propose is that Prop 8 somehow puts restrictions on heterosexual couples who want to marry. How is that logical?

Homosexuals in California already had the right to marry.
Prop 8 eliminated that right, and created a ban.

Heterosexual couples can marry the same... even with Prop 8 as law.
However, homosexual couples cannot marry at ALL... because of Prop 8.
Prop 8 placed restricitons for only “certain” couples can marry.

Therefore, Proposition 8—even if you don’t agree— was not “all encompassing.”

If you have an issue with homosexuals marrying, just say it.

[Michael D.]

As a Californian, I voted “No on Prop 8” solely because of 2 reasons:

1. I am not a homosexual, but I wouldn’t want anyone to vote away my rights. Therefore, I could not conscionably do the same to other citizens.

2. I do not feel that democracy should be used to take rights away from people. During the Prop 8 campaign it was painfully clear that “Yes on 8” supporters wanted to take rights away from other citizens, based on their personal belief. “No on 8” supporters simply wanted to protect their rights from being taken away.

It’s a very dangerous policy, when you allow the majority to vote on the rights of a minority.

That’s how Nazi Germany started.

[Michael D.]

For the record, I first contemplated voting "Yes on 8" because of antiquated notions of homosexuality.

What changed my mind was the idea stated above. Being a heterosexual, Prop 8 really had absolutely no effect on my life. It did, however, directly target taking rights away from others.

What scares me now, is that The CA Supreme Court has basically said that it’s okay for ANY fanatic to change our Constitution, if they have enough money/media power to manipulate enough votes.

The gays are an easy target. You all should be asking yourselves: "who's next?"

[Nick Baker]

To Blog Author:

By you logic, A law that prohibits writing with your left hand provides equal protection becuase it applies to both left and right handed people. What your argument leaves out is that one group (be it left handed people or homosexuals) is overwhelmingly handicapped by the law, while the other group (right handed or heterosexual) is basically unnaffected.

The point can be further illustrated by using the example of a law that says it is illegeal to have skin darker than light brown. This law "applies" to everyone... (A strong tan might take you over the limit)... but it is obviously racist and singles out a specific group.

Being able to find a situation where a law might apply to "every" group does not make it egalitarian

[larapture]

I agree w/Prop 8 ruling! No offense to gays, but let's face it, it's bad for children, the country and just a powder keg waiting to explode i.e., pedophiles, animals/human union, illegal infiltration of aliens through marriage amd so much more. You don't have to be a Christian to see that. I have people in my life who are gay, and I don't treat them any different than others. I am a Christian and I would appreciate people not labeling us as bigots, homophobes etc. I to was gay for a time in my life but saw the error of my ways, Praise God! It's not about live and let live, it's about telling folks about Jesus, the saviour of the world and His teachings. As a follower, you are compelled to tell others of His love and sacrifices and no force on earth, below or above will change that. As Jesus to make Himself known to you and He will.

[gunshowsigns]

RE:Beware of Prop 8 Backer Seeking ‘Friendship’
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/beware-prop-8-backer-seeking-%E2%80%98friendship%E2%80%99

Beware of what friends P8 with the gay mafia/legals? We want you out of LA and out of the state. You cannot win in the ballot box and CA justices can be recalled. Now you fools are trying the feds. This is great I want the 9th Circus to start gay marriage again then majority will finally know there is no coexistence with the gay lifestyle. This is just the gay legals ignoring the state constitution because there never was any gay marriage in the first place at the writing of the constitution. The judges first illegal ruling for gay should have cost them their jobs (recalled). They cannot change the constitution without an amendment. There are no 18000 gay marriages since there is no gay marriage. Since the gay legals are playing the paper game, the state can do a paper succession then ratify the US constitution with addition of booting the gay. Civil Rights or Civil War was your internet cry. The rest of the states of like mind can follow suit
and the US will be 2 confederacies with a token fed gov. So much for the current get whitey, get christian, pro abortion, pro gay US Supreme Court nominee.

[Michael D.]

To the comments from "larapture" and "gunshowsigns"...
Just an FYI... Prop 8 was not started by Homosexuals (or GayLegals).

You prove my point about fanaticism.
Again, that's why I voted against Prop 8.

I originally supported it, but when I discovered that it was created (and funded) by conservative groups who wanted to push through an agenda. I also realized that opponents of Prop 8 were simply trying to protect their rights.

The bottom line was that Prop 8 took rights away from tax-paying citizens... and I don't care who they are (Gay, Black, Asian, White, Christian, Male, Female).

You should not place individual citizen's civil rights up for public vote.
You are free to believe what you want, but to manipulate the democratic system for the purpose of removing citizen's rights (just to fit your own beliefs) is wrong.

The foundation of our government is to protect citizen's rights... not take them away.

For the record:
I also don't think that abortion or gun rights should be voter issues.

[Michael D.]

OOPS!

What I meant to say was:

"I also don't think that abortion or gun rights should NOT be voter issues."

[Michael D.]

OOPS!

I said it right the first time.
Damn double negatives.

"I also think that abortion or gun rights should NOT be voter issues."

[Chris]

Nice work Ken! Your logic has "gunshowsigns" just about delirous.

Your logic completely lacks understanding. See the decision of your neighboring state court in Varnam v Brien -- they held that your idea was ridiculous becuase it would require gay individuals to completely negate their very nature. (Yes, it's genetic, please look a the science. You all do still believe in science in SD I take it?)

Your assertion that you bested your friend is oblivious too, the state court rulled on a VERY narrow issue. Further, they upheld their ruling of last year that while the "designation" marriage cannot be used gay unions must have equal rights and equal respect by the state. All you guys who want to take away my basic rights got was the word, and they basically ruled that that was possible because the word doesn't mean that much. Is that what you wanted? That's what you got.

Of course it's a violation of the 14th ammendment -- here's my proof, Scalia basically says it in his dissent in Lawrence v Texas (the 2003 case striking down the last few sodomy laws in the US). His premise was, and he's a smart guy, that if you can't criminalize private behavior, you can't justify unequal treatment based on it.

Another thought exercise: reverse your premise and apply it to yourself (unEQUAL treatment remember?). Go with it: If there were a law that said that people could only marry people of their own gender. (not that it matters for this exercise but say procreation is all invitro and surrogates -- it was an idea lobbied for by the big drug companies) Would you feel there was equal treatment because you could marry -- a man that you had no desire for, and not the woman that you love? It strikes at the very idea of marriage as it is defined now -- a loving partnership.

When I am confronted by this argument i usually reply "Great, I'll marry your daughter."

Think of the unhappiness in the world created by people who are in the closet and marry while lying to thier spouse -- all you have to do is look up Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho to see what I mean. Maybe if he had had laws protecting him, had equal treatment when he was a young man, he wouldn't be doing the revolting stuff he did, and he would not have subjected his wife to the unhappiness she must be enduring. People are who they are -- you are straight, I'm gay. I don't want to interfere with your life, please don't deny me the ability to fully live my life.......fyi, I'm a business owner, an employer, a donor to charities, a churchgoer (yes there are Christian demoniations that support gay people: UCC, Unitarians, Episicol Chruch, etc. along with Reform Judism), etc. I try to live by the golden rule, I don't understand why others can't or don't want o

Larapture -- you are not for real --people who are gay know you can't change it anymore than our author could decide one day to be gay.

All 8 is doing is creating suffering for gay people and our families until it gets reversed, which it will.

[KB]

Thanks to all for the comments.

Michael D: You say "Your point is illogical. What you propose is that Prop 8 somehow puts restrictions on heterosexual couples who want to marry." No, I don't.

You say: "Heterosexual couples can marry the same... even with Prop 8 as law.
However, homosexual couples cannot marry at ALL... because of Prop 8.
Prop 8 placed restrictions for only “certain” couples can marry." Equal protection applies to persons not couples. Underage couples cannot marry. Neither can inter-species couples. There are not constitutional standards to say which couples are eligible.

You say: "I am not a homosexual, but I wouldn’t want anyone to vote away my rights." There is no constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex, or someone underage, or someone too closely related (which is itself a judgment call).

Nick Baker: You say "By your logic, A law that prohibits writing with your left hand provides equal protection because it applies to both left and right handed people. What your argument leaves out is that one group (be it left handed people or homosexuals) is overwhelmingly handicapped by the law, while the other group (right handed or heterosexual) is basically unaffected." Yes, and a law restriction marriage to two persons has a disparate impact on an immigrant who was legally married to two people back home. Lots of perfectly valid laws has disparate impacts. Also: just because a law doesn't violate equal protection, that doesn't mean that it is legitimate. There are lots of other restrictions in the Constitution.

Just because gunshowsigns is for Prop. 8 doesn't prove that Prop. 8 is wrong. That would be an ad hominem. I think I have made it clear that I would not have voted for Prop. 8.

Chris:

I have no idea what you are talking about in your first paragraph, since I wrote nothing to which it might be relevant. I am in favor of gay marriage.

As to your second paragraph, it was my friend A.I., not I, who wrote of besting one another on this issue. I make the same argument you made about the narrow issue.

A law allowing homosexual marriage but not heterosexual marriage would be a bad law for all sorts of reasons; but it wouldn't violate equal protection if it was applied equally to all persons. What is equal cannot be unequal. Am I going too fast for you?

Sorry if I got testy, but I logic is not something on which I am prepared to compromise. I am in favor of gay marriage for a lot of the reasons you mention. When a restrictive amendment was up for voter review, I voted against it. I just don't think that I don't like something, it's unconstitutional, or because I like it, it's constitutionally required.

Thanks again to all for the comments. I haven't had this many people show up to my birthday parties.

[P. Chirry]

Michael D. I thought your left-handed vs. right-handed example was interesting. Just a couple of things:

While such a law would obviously be unfair to left-handed people, I don't think you could say banning people from writing with their left hand is really taking away any of their rights (no pun intended), per se, as you are claiming that banning homosexual marriage does.

Also, there is really no important difference between left-handed people and right-handed people whereas there is a substantial difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Males and females are not the same: they are different anatomically, mentally, emotionally, and traditionally. Because of this one male plus one female is always going to be significantly different than two females or two males.

And, in my opinion, the differences are enough to warrant the recognition of one and not the other. What has homosexuality ever done for society?

So really I don't think the left-handed/right-handed example applies.

[William]

Chris,

Your statement: "Your logic completely lacks understanding. See the decision of your neighboring state court in Varnam v Brien -- they held that your idea was ridiculous becuase it would require gay individuals to completely negate their very nature. (Yes, it's genetic, please look a the science. You all do still believe in science in SD I take it?)"

Isn't this the same rational that states that addictions are genetic (drug, alcohol, gambling, et al)? If your interpretation of genetic "stamping" is valid, there there can be no recovering addicts of "any stripe". Of course, people DO free themselves of addictions, so a "genetic type" is hardly and excuse to justify, let alone normalize a deviant behavior. A predisposition to deviant or addictive behavior is NOT an excuse to normalize it.

Your statement that "people that are gay know you can't change it" is just as invalid as a statement that "people that are drunks know you can't change it".

"It strikes at the very idea of marriage as it is defined now -- a loving partnership"

Your definition, not mine nor society's at large. If your definition was valid, it would be held by the majority of our citizens, obviously it's not. At least, not yet.

Wm.

[Nick Baker]

KB: I can agree with you that laws having disparate impact are not necessarily in violation of equal protection... Where the difference as I see it come in is intention. Many of those vaild laws with disparate impacts are not INTENTIONALLY trying to limit the freedom of a specific group of people. Prop 8 is a law that is intentionally aimed at gay freedom. Ask a prop 8 backer...most will shamelessly back me up on this.

PS: I think that polygamy laws are BS as well.

P. Chirry:
It was me that made the right handed/left handed example. To start with, my example most likely would constitute a violation of free speech, since it would significantly impede many from communicating. That being said the specfics of the argument are moot. The analogy still applies. The differences between males and females and their relationships are also inconsequtional to the application of the analogy...unless you are predjuiced againt certain combinations.

My question to you is this: What if I as a supporter of this anti-left handed writing law feel that left handed people have done nothing for society?? Does that exuse my support of such a law?

I am assuming that your arguement againt gay couples not doing anything for society is based on their lack of baby production. Fortunatly overpopulation is a serious issue in many parts of the world...and their are millions of children in need of adoption. I personally know a gay couple with 2 beautful children that they take excellent care of.

lol. Bedtime.

[Nick Baker]

William: Since you seem to have more knowlege than the doctors at the AMA that classify addictions as a disease..... you must be a super genius.

That aside, you are showing your bigoted tendency with you statement that being gay is like being a drug addict... Really ? How so? Where is the societal harm? The gay mafia killing people over transporting "gay" and distributing "gay" in their territory?? People robbing people at gunpoint so they can get gay for the afternoon?

Since you are obviously bigoted in your viewpoint, (Yea, you are. Deal with it. The definition according to dictionary.com : [–noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.] arguing it with you would serve little purpose. I am curious where you get the idea that FORCING your bigoted idea on others is ok though? I am constantly suprised by conservatives who denounce big goverment when it comes to money and LOVE big government when it comes to forcing their way of thinking on others.

Sigh. I guess I will argue it wih you for a second. Your idea that being gay is unnatural/deviant (PS to all you bigots out there: Your arguement that gay marriage is tantamount to legalizing pedophilia is insane. The comparing of an agressive act against a child vs. a consentual act between 2 adults is proof of your irrationality) is not borne out when you look at nature. There are over 1000 species in nature that exhibit homosexual activity. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/) Not to mention all the other weird stuff animals do. Take for example the preying mantis. The female eats it's mates head after sex. If God thinks decapitation sex is ok... I dont think he cares about a couple of guys having sex.

[Miranda]

Those of us who voted for Prop 8 had a number of reasons to do so.
Many of us are opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds. Most of the world's major religions forbid homosexuality. Therefore, if those of us who are Jews, Christians or Muslims must have a very good reason to vote against our religious
and moral convictions.

The reason's I've heard so far are nice, but not enough. Some, for instance say that gay couples ought to be allowed to marry because they are in love. But we don't let everyone who is in love marry and we probably shouldn't. Many children believe they are in love, for instance. Others believe they are in love with animals. Others with cartoon characters. Allowing anyone to marry anyone would almost certainly make marriage meaningless.

Dr. Blanchard's arguments are more convincing, but I don't think that allowing gay couples to marry is any less diluting.

I'm open to other arguments. But, as I say, they'd have to be good.

One final point:

Dismissing religious upbringing as "brainwashing" and assuming that every
person who believes in the Christian God is uneducated is bigoted. You
may pride yourself, Fern, on being tolerant and understanding, but you
come off as vicious and hateful.

[Michael D.]

Hello again.

Sorry Chris, I misunderstood your blog.
I thought "you" said all those things.
I hope you relay my messages to your friend AI.

However, I still disagree w/ some of your logic.

These reasons you mention (relations marry too closely, under-age marriage), do not apply to this argument. Thses things are part of the civil code and are illegal.

You are talking about Pedophilia and Incest. Homosexuality is not illegal. If Homosexual couples were allowed to marry, they would be required to abide by those same civil codes.

The fact is:
- Prop 8 did not apply to "Everyone."
- It was specificly designed to end homosexual marriages, no more no less.
- During the "Prop 8" debate, supporters where not saying, "we want to make sure that no heterosexual people can marry their own sex." They were very specific about their target: Homosexuals. They came right out and said it.

Whether you want to accept that into your logic is your deal.

[Michael D.]

AGAIN, EVERYONE:
I am not arguing if Homosexuality is right or wrong.
I cannot stress this enough.

MY POINT IS:
Certain tax-paying US citizens had a right, and a specific group (who didn't believe in that right) crafted an amendment and manipulated the democratic process to REVOKE those rights.

I don't care WHO it is! That is wrong!

I would not want my rights to be taken away so easily.
It should not be a "popular vote" to REVOKE individual's rights.
That is very, very wrong... and very, very dangerous.

What if you were the only Christian on a street full of Muslims?
Think about it!

Would you want your neighbors to vote away your right to read the Bible in the privacy of your own home?

[Michael D.]

I am a Christian, and I am a Heterosexual.
I do not necessarily agree with the Homosexual lifestyle.

But I MOST CERTIANLY not agree with the process of using the democratic system to REVOKE the rights of other tax-paying citizens, just because I don’t like them.

I would not want strangers to vote on my personal freedoms, and I would not do unto others that I wouldn't want done to myself.

It’s a very un-Christian and (quite frankly) dirty, under-handed think to do… TO ANYONE!

[Miranda]

Michael:
Do rights come from the government or are we endowed with them by our creator?
If they come from the government, then the government, which is of the people, by the people, for the people, can give and take them. Therefore, a right is only
a right as long as we, the people, make it one. Voting to revoke rights, then, is not a great evil.

If, on the other hand, God endows us with certain rights, trying to take away
another person's rights is immoral. But if you believe that God grants rights
and you also believe that God forbids homosexuality, it is hard to argue
that God has endowed anyone with a right to marry someone of the same sex.

One could also make the same arguments you make for pedophilia. It is illegal now - but maybe that's just because we're taking away the pedophiles right
to choose his own sexual destiny. Maybe making pedophilia illegal is wrong
because it tramples someone's rights.

I don't think so, but, hey, if it's under-handed to do it to "anyone", well,
there you go.

[Nick Baker]

Miranda ,Quit comparing homosexuality (A mutally consentual relationship) to pedophilia and beastiality (in both cases they are rape). It just proves that you are irrational in your thinking.

The dilution argument is silly. Regular marriages seem to be doing just fine in the state where gay marriage is legal.

Also an example:

If I believe that God thinks that women are to wear burkas, Does that make it OK for me to force women not of my religion to do so?

With prop 8 the door has been opened for anyone to force things like the above question on us.

It is perfectly acceptable for you as a christian to not get married and for the christian church not to support such a marriage, but you have no right to force that on others..... But you choose to do so.

and Christians wonder why the Christian church is in decline... You try to FORCE others to your way of life instead of leading by example. That is a sure way to turn people off. Look at the life jesus lived.....He lead by example and not by force. If Jesus had wanted you to worry about laws, I am pretty sure he would have spent his time lobbying instead of living among sinners...showing them love and tolerance.

You act with the same mindset as many Islamic states do.... Codify and legislate dogmatic "moral" ideas (Burkas, Same sex marriage, etc.). and are then suprised at peoples violent dislike of you. It is really to bad, and is definely a reason I no longer am a part of the mainstream Christian world.

[Miranda]

Mr. Baker:

I mentioned pedophiles because I was responding to Michael D, who mentioned them in his post. I agree with you that rape is wrong - but I believe that because of my Christian upbringing. If the Christian values that I have are really, as Fern seems to think, just brainwashing, and I'm wrong about gay marriage being bad for society, then perhaps I'm wrong about rape as well.

You seem to believe that consent makes all things right. But why? What moral code are you following, where does it come from and what makes it superior to a Christian's? I ask out of a genuine desire to know, because your side's judgments seem rather arbitrary to me.

As for the dilution argument - I think it's a bit to soon too make that judgment.
Gay marriages haven't been around long enough for people to know their effect.
What factors are you looking at to see whether or not marriage is fine in those
states?

Finally, I am not at all surprised that Christians are disliked. Christ himself predicted as much. But I do think that your side is at least as intolerant as mine - if not more so.

Gays forcing themselves into Christian leadership positions through lawsuits and various other means are sort of a turn off to us too. But Christianity isn't a popularity contest. If you're not going to bother believing in what your religious codes say, then there isn't really any point in belonging to a religion. So when someone like Michael D. says he's a Christian, but he wouldn't let that effect his politics, well, I just don't see the point.

I am not at all surprised by your dislike. I expect it. I merely wish to point out that your side isn't any more tolerant of the things it finds wrong.

You'll forgive me if I don't take religious advice from an atheist. It's rather like taking medical advice from a corpse.

Jesus, by the way, did not simply sit around being a nice guy. He threw over tables, called out sinners and commanded people to "go and sin no more." While he was often gentle, he did not simply
sit around hoping for the world to get better. And while I believe in treating
individuals with respect - I do not believe in applauding or condoning actions that are morally wrong.

[Miranda]

Mr. Baker,

I mentioned pedophiles because Michael D. mentioned it in his post. I was
replying to him.

I believe you are right that rape is wrong. But I believe that because of my Christian upbringing. If I'm wrong about homosexuality, well, then I may be
wrong about rape as well.

If we are not allowed to make laws that restrict the things that we believe
are wrong, then what gives you the right to prohibit rape, murder, or anything else? I really would like to understand your reasoning.

I am not at all surprised by your dislike of Christians. I merely wished to point
out that your side isn't any more tolerant than mine. You are certainly free to hate me as much as you choose.

[Miranda]

Nick,

I wrote about paedophiles because I was responding to Michael D, who had
spoken of them in his post.

I agree with you that rape is wrong, but I believe that it is wrong for the
same reason I believe that homosexuality is wrong. If I am wrong about
homosexuality, then I suppose I might be wrong about rape as well. Maybe
my idea that rape is wrong is just a result of Christian brainwashing.
Maybe I shouldn't force that belief on other people. Maybe you shouldn't either.
How do you determine what is right or what is wrong? For a Christian, the things
God says are wrong are wrong. But what do atheists think? What do you think?
If something is wrong just because one man says so, then it can also be right just because another says so. What makes things sacred or special?
Why should I give more credence to your opinions than my own? I ask because I genuinely want to know.

The truth is that when society makes laws, it makes those who would
rather not follow them conform. I suspect that you have supported
decisions that have restricted others in some way. Christians are not
the only people who try to make others live their way. Gay men, for
instance, have been trying to get the Catholic Church to put them
in leadership positions for a long time. I am sorry that Christian
values do not appeal to you, but I wouldn't be a Christian if Christianity
were only popularity contest. It isn't.

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I don't take religious advice from an atheist.
It's a little like taking medical advice from a corpse.

[Miranda]

Sorry for the repeat posts. for whatever reason, my first tries didn't show up before.

[Michael D.]

Thank you, Nick Baker, for explaining the point a little more logically.
Although I don't agree with everything you said about Christianity, Nick.
I agree with your point.

Miranda, I understand that Conservative Christian belief is the majority in this country. Even so, when Conservative Christians form organizations to manipulate and change political policy.... they ARE "special interest groups."

Just because they are in the majority... it does not make them "right", nor does it exempt them from "special interest" status. It is not the "right and privilage" of the majority to strip rights and privilages from the minority.

THAT is the law of our land. It is the reason why we have 3 branches of government and a set of "checks and balances."

I AM A CHRISTIAN, TOO!
However, I also firmly believe in our democratic and judicial process.
It IS UNJUST, WRONG, AND (YES) UNDER-HANDED to manipulate the vote in order to push through your own SPECIAL INTEREST! NO MATTER WHO OR WHAT YOU ARE!

[Michael D.]

AGAIN, whether you or I like it:
1. Homosexuals had the right to marry in California. They did not ask for this right. The court overturned a previous law (which was also placed on the ballot by the very same SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP back in 2000). The court ruled that this law (Prop 22) violated the civil rights and discrimination clauses in the CA State Constitution. In other words, it is a CHRISTIAN SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP that keeps pushing this issue.

2. Because Homosxuals already had the right to marry, Proposition 8 DID INDEED strip tax-paying citizens of their existing rights. Whether you agree... that is EXACTLY what it did.

3. Proposition 8 WAS authored, promoted, and paid-for by SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS (whether or not you accept Conservative Christian Lobbyists to be "special interests". By ALL definitions, THEY ARE!)

It is obvoius that I am talking to a wall when talking to you, Miranda.
You are one of the fanatics I speak of.

If you don't like our democratic process... and the fact that it has checks and balances.... then move somewhere that is ruled according to religious dogma.

I here you can get a permenant visa to Afghanistan very easily these days.

[Michael D.]

Well put.
Thank you, Nick Baker.

... and YES, Miranda. Our rights ARE granted and PROTECTED by the government.

It is the duty of the government (as an entity) to protect our rights from religious zealots, like yourself. A simple majority rule DOES NOT have the right to void the rights of a minority.

There is a reason why we have division od Church and State. To pretect ALL citizens beliefs. That not ONE singular religious power can influence (or HIGHJACK) the power of the government to grant equal rights to all.

These were the principles instilled in our Constitution. The same document that people like you are trying to amend, just to suit your own beliefs.

Get a grip. Your religious beliefs, church rights, and/or personal life is not effected in ANY way if same-sex marriage were to become legal. Yet, you feel you have the right to effect the lives of other citizens, by forcing your beleifs upon them through fear, lies, and manipulation of the democratic process.

YES! THAT IS SNEAKY, UNDER-HANDED, AND DOWN-RIGHT UN-CHRISTIAN!