Think Progress

New York court nixes gay marriage.

By Nico Pitney on Jul 6th, 2006 at 10:02 am

New York court nixes gay marriage.

In a 4-2 decision, the New York Court of Appeals “ruled this morning that the state Constitution does not guarantee a right to marriage for same-sex couples.”

  • Print


223 Responses to “New York court nixes gay marriage.”

  1. dale says:

    What? The legislature will have to change existing law??? Not an activist judge? How un-american can you get. Next thing you know they’ll have the public voting on things like abortion. Damn the evil doers!

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:08 am
  2. Lupeyg2 says:

    Well, time for the legislature to take it up.

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:08 am
  3. Storms says:

    Hmm. A court that actually understands it’s not their job to create law. That’s pretty encouraging.

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:17 am
  4. Democratic Soldier says:

    Now if only the Legislature will do the right thing and allow gay marriage.

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:20 am
  5. Kelso rich says:

    They should be fair and ban all marriage.

    Only the church should be recognizing it anyway.

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:28 am
  6. dale says:

    rhey will not be putting their political careers on the line for the sake of this issue. its over in NY

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:29 am
  7. Big John says:

    and good riddance to it!

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:31 am
  8. moonbat patrol says:

    well, finally some common sense even if it did come out of NY. surprising. The issue of so called gay “marriage” shold NOT be decided on by some judges(s) like it was in Taxachussets. It ultimately should be decide by the voters.
    now the NY legislature should do the right thing and declare marriage is between one man and one woman . so called gay marriage is not about marriage it is about gays trying to legitimize their chosen lifestyle,

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:35 am
  9. MNW says:
  10. Jason M. Hendler says:

    #1, dale, & #2, Lupeyg2,

    Yes, legislatures will finally have to take on and resolve tough issues, instead of grandstanding and leaving it to the courts or ballot initiatives. Funny how a 30 – 40 year concerted effort had to be made by conservatives to fill the courts with strict constructionists, just to get us back to where we bagan.

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:36 am
  11. Democratic Soldier says:

    I recall that once the Supreme Court upheld slavery.

    I recall that once the Supreme Court upheld “separate but equal” after slavery was outlawed.

    I recall that once the Supreme Court upheld women shouldn’t vote.

    Times change and eventually this wrong headed decision will be overturned.

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:39 am
  12. Lupeyg2 says:

    #9 – do you try and legitimize you’re chosen life style by going out and getting married? This is about equal rights…the likes of which would not have an effect on your life (or would it).

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:45 am
  13. Lupeyg2 says:

    #9 – oh, and who says it’s chosen anyhow? You?

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:46 am
  14. Democratic Soldier says:

    #13 – It’s about as “chosen” a lifestyle as Moonbat “chose” to be heterosexual. (Hmmm. I guess I’ll decide to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Goody for me!)

    I think it’s even funnier to hear how allowing gays to marry will suddently destory every heterosexual marriage in the world instantly.

    If “straight marriage” were so precarious, what makes those kind of people think that gay marriage will destroy it? Straight marriage hasn’t declined in Canada since they’ve allowed gay marriage. I guess it’s another inconvenient truth that the uber-trolls don’t care to consider.

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:53 am
  15. Lupeyg2 says:

    #15 – quit making cogent and coherent arguments….it goes directly against the reichtwing agenda.

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:55 am
  16. silly bigots says:

    I’m gonna get married to an illegal alien just to shack up and take advantage of the marriage tax breaks.

    See, gay marriage has already destroyed straight marriage. The gays have already won.

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:58 am
  17. Lupeyg2 says:

    Not me, I’m going to get married in a heterosexual relationship just to take advantage of the tax break. It’s going to be loveless and procedural, but hey, it’s legal. Wait a second, I see it now….ITS THE TAX BREAKS that are destroying the institution of marriage.

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:00 am
  18. Democratic Soldier says:

    #16 – Are you going to go for the illegal aliens from Mars or Venus? ;-)

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:01 am
  19. moonbat patrol says:

    as sure as the sun came up in the east this morning I knew the homophiles would rise up and whine and snivel over gay “rights”.
    #11-12-13 ho hum write on brother.
    this is not about slavery or bigotry or any other talking point you want to make it.
    so called gay “marriage” has nothing to do with marriage or “right” or anything else other than gays and their supporters trying to legitimize homosexuality.
    In a democratic society people get to vote on what type of society that they will live in. Every time so called gay “marriage” has been voted on it has been rightfully shot down. Then the gays tried to use the courts when they couldn’t sway popular opinion. Ther is absolutely no viable sound reason for gays to get amrried other than to force their lifestyle on America. and yes you can choose not to be queer if you so choose. homosexuality is the ultimate narccissm. the ultiamate manifestation of our selfish deviant society. It is an indicator of a society in moral decline.
    you will have about as much luck getting your so called gay “marriage” passed in America as snow in Miami in July. It’s never going to happen.
    right now even in Taxachussets there is a move to overturn the judges tyrannical rule of allowing so called gay “marriage” and it will win. America does not want you deviant sexual behavoir legitimized with marriage.. get used to it.

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:02 am
  20. Democratic Soldier says:

    #17 – ‘It’s going to be loveless and procedural, but hey, it’s legal.”

    So, you’re going to do the “Rush Limbaugh” thing, eh? Make sure you get a big ‘ol bottle of Viagra! His first three failed becuse he didn’t have the ‘blue pill”. Maybe four times is a charm?

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:04 am
  21. Alexandra says:

    Wow, in New York of all places they ban gay marriage? And then there was the huge uproar in San Fransisco last year when the mayor began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples? Is Massachusetts really the only decent state left in the country?

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:06 am
  22. Big John says:

    amen to that patrolman

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:06 am
  23. Lupeyg2 says:

    #20

    you will have about as much luck getting your so called gay “marriage” passed in America as snow in Miami in July. It’s never going to happen.

    Somebody hasn’t seen An Inconvenient Truth yet.

    so called gay “marriage” has nothing to do with marriage or “right” or anything else other than gays and their supporters trying to legitimize homosexuality

    Marriage has nothing to do with right or anything else then either except for Christians trying to legitimize their religion.

    no viable sound reason for gays to get amrried other than to force their lifestyle on America.

    Or possibly another reason could be to be afforded the same legal rights that straight couples have…just a thought. No viable sound reason for anybody to get married other than to force their Christianity on other people.

    I say we do away with marriage in our government and switch all terminology over to civil unions and make them between two willing and cognitively present human beings.

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:08 am
  24. Democratic Soldier says:

    #19 – Dumbass says “what?”

    I just love it when Republi-tards holler about sexual deviancy, but cry “foul” when their leaders are shown to have fewer sexual mores than pedophiles.

    60 years ago, gay people were locked up by law. 30 years ago, “homosexuality’ was removed from the list of mental disorders by the APA. 15 years ago, “don’t ask, don’t tell” proved that the military wouldn’t be destroyed by gays serving their country. 3 years ago, the first gay bishop was appointed.

    In 20-30 years, the anti-gay crowd will have died off and equal rights will be granted. All you have to do is look at the historical trend. 15-35 year olds are more likely to approve of gay relationships at a much higher rate than 65-85 year olds.

    Here’s looking forward to the approval of gay marriage in the future!

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:13 am
  25. I Heart Big Oil says:

    Gee, a liberal Court in NY strikes down the left’s radical attempt to re-write the constitution.

    To that – I say good. The left and their HATEFUL agenda against traditional values must be stopped. AND you will be.

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:15 am
  26. Democratic Soldier says:

    #23 – Oh, now you’re just making too much sense. ;-)

    It’s very good idea, though.

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:15 am
  27. Chase says:

    Gay marriage advocates rely completely on the courts because, as it’s been shown time after time, when put to voters, they overwhelmingly disapprove of gay marriage.

    Maybe one day that will change. But for now, gay marriage is done.

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:15 am
  28. silly bigots says:

    In a democratic society people get to vote on what type of society that they will live in.

    If this were a democratic society some states would have legal gay marriage and others wouldn’t. Then all the troglodytes could move to their desired backward-ass state where they can continue to persecute the gays and revert back to hating all the Jews, Mexicans, and Blacks like they used to. Oh yeah, they can get to hate the Chinese again too.

    And the progressive states could then move into the 21st century!

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:16 am
  29. Lupeyg2 says:

    #25, am I off or are you off? I’m seeing moonbat’s post as #20, not #19 (which is who you are referring to correct?). And, in #21, you referred to me as #17, when I’m showing #18. Must be the NSA.

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:17 am
  30. Democratic Soldier says:

    #25 – And time will chip away at your side’s aging population, and the rights hateful agenda will turn you all into prune-faced pissed-off geezers.

    Don’t look now, but there are more younger people who support gay rights than those that hate gay people! I think you’ve got a losing proposition that will eventually die off as time progresses and more of your backwards facing theorists continue to support anti-American policies.

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:19 am
  31. Scott says:

    to Moon #19 “In a democratic society people get to vote on what type of society that they will live in.”

    By this argument, we can reinstitute slavery if a majority of Americans want it badly enough. At the same time, lets implement stonings for those children that talk back to their parents, or for those people that cut their hair, or eat shellfish. Hey, if we can convince (bribe, coerce) enough people to vote for it, we can even force everyone to sacrifice a lamb on their front lawns before dinner each night, after all if a majority of Americans vote for it, it must be good for the Nation. Perhaps you don’t know that the Bill of Rights and Constitution are there to protect individual rights as well as to protect the minority from the often times corrupt wishes of the majority! This issue is about equality and “Freedom for all” as Dick Cheney put it. Stop trying to force your dogmatic mythology (ie: “Christian” religion) on the rest of us.

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:27 am
  32. Joe Sixpack says:

    America does not want you deviant sexual behavoir legitimized with marriage.. get used to it.
    Comment by moonbat patrol

    Well, crap, moonbat. I was really looking foward to doing something deviant, too. I get plumb tired of the missionary position all the time.

    I guess that leaves me and you in the same boat, huh? Kind of like evangelical stalwarts Jimmy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart. But what the hell, at least a prostitute doesn’t want me to cuddle them afterward.

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:41 am
  33. Democratic Soldier says:

    #31 – If Slavery were allowed to be voted on, it would still be legal. Sometimes, you have to take away the choice to show how wrong their initial decisions would be were they allowed to vote on it.

    I’m sure that when gay marriage is approved in 20-30 years that it will be laughed at as such a stupid thing to have been outlawed. At least laughed at by those who grow out of their irrational, immature and wrongheaded hatred for gay people.

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:43 am
  34. Democratic Soldier says:

    #32 – As they said on South Park, “You don’t pay the prostitute to sleep with you, you pay the prostitute to leave after you’re done!” ;-)

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:45 am
  35. Dave M. says:

    In a democratic society people get to vote on what type of society that they will live in

    So, if everyone in America agrees that same sex marriages should be banned, that’s democracy. But if everyone in America agrees that the minimum wage should be raised to 10 dollars an hour, that’s “mob rule” over business.

    Apparently, gay individuals should be controlled by society, but businesses should be allowed to pay sub-poverty levels to families. That’s great stuff, and harkens back to what our founding fathers wanted: for all businesses to be considered equal.

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:53 am
  36. Chase says:

    #33 – Do you really think there is a majority in favor of reinstituting slavery? Do you know any one of these people personally? I don’t.

    but #31 – If enough people in this country wanted some policy, candidates endorsing that opinion would emerge, they would be elected and others of their ilk would follow. Soon enough the policy would be instituted. This is how a democratic republic works. That’s what elections are for.

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:53 am
  37. Count Iblis says:

    Gay marriage is no threat to ordinary marriage. Gay people don’t want to ban heterosexuals from getting married. The reverse is true, however. The Christian Right want to ban gay marriage because they perceive it to be a threat to heterosexual marriage. So, it is more logical to ban heterosexual marriage to protect gay marriage :)

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:55 am
  38. Big John says:

    libs love to play the victim

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:59 am
  39. Tom Goldsmith says:

    The gay marriage issue strikes me as two separate issues that frequently get conflated. There are the legal/ethical issues wherein “marriage” creates certain rights and responsibilities between two consenting adults (authorizing medical care, inheritance, joint property ownership, etc.) and the religious issue involving church recognition of the institution of marriage and the performance of a religious ceremony.

    No government entity should compel any religious organization to recognize or refuse to recognize the sanctioning of such a religious rite. On the other hand, if there are government-conferred benefits that accrue to any two individuals who agree to legally entangle their lives, those benefits should be extended to all who make that choice, regardless of gender.

    In other words, the government can’t force a church to recognize the marriage of a gay couple, nor should the church be able — by withholding such recognition — be able to block access by that couple to the state-granted legal benefits that accrue from obtaining a valid marriage license and entering into a legally binding union presided over by a civil authority.

    What’s so hard about that.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
  40. Democratic Soldier says:

    #39 – You bring up some very good points.

    The religious right is trying to pain the issue as “We’ll be forced to marry gays!” Such a canard. NO religion can be forced to marry anyone they don’t want to marry, and they never have been. That bears repeating: NO RELIGION HAS EVER BEEN FORCED TO ALLOW MARRIAGES OF WHICH THEY DON’T APPROVE!

    When inter-racial marriage bans were overturned, these right-wing religious nuts tried the same argument, and they were proven wrong. They were not “forced’ to marry anyone they didn’t approve of, and they never have been forced to do so since.

    It’s amazing that the biggest “threat” to straight marriage comes from straight people who use divorce to solve marriage problems. How about they pass a ban on divorce!

    Some states approved “covenant marriage” to help solve the divorce rate. Guess what? Very few straight people chose to accept covenant marriage. I guess it was too restrictive. Go figure.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
  41. MNW says:

    Freedom and justice for all is nothing but a dream. It doesn’t really exist in this country.

    It’s such a sham.

    This country doesn’t represent the ideals it once stood for. It’s a shame so many have died for what this country once stood for, only to have it tossed into the heap of history because a bunch of bigots can’t get over their own shortcomings, pejudice, and hatred of people they disapprove of.

    The fall of the American empire will not be attributed to two people of the same sex loving one another, it will be attributed to the wickedness of religious based prejudice and hate. Christianists will destroy this country with their zealousness, not gay people with their love for one another.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
  42. Big John says:

    it never was an issue or would never have been an issue ’til some gay individuals and an activist judge decided that it would force it down the throat of all americans without a vote. so now its an issue. and as always if you are against it, as is your right to be for or against anything, you then are demonized as a gay hater, which 99% of the time is not the case.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
  43. MNW says:

    Big John,

    You are a bigot.

    The truth hurts, doesn’t it.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
  44. Big John says:

    there is my validation

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
  45. Parrotlover77 says:

    It cracks me up that the trolls use the exact same arguments that were used against every other oppressed people in the United States’ history. From slavery to women’s right to vote. It just cracks me up! The irony… Oh, the irony.

    Also, this ruling isn’t as bad as it sounds. It simply states that no existing law protects this right in the state. The legislature has every right to write such a law. Now if they will… That’s another story. The gay marriage bans in many other states are much more dangerous in infringing the rights of the states’ citizens.

    I agree with the many other posters that state that in 20-30 years, this whole issue will seem as ridiculous as legal segration did before the civil rights movement.

    Try as they might, the fascist right cannot maintain the hatred and bigotry forever. Eventually they die off and the younger generation that replaces them is just a little more progressive (even the wingnuts).

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
  46. MNW says:

    Big John,

    My right to equal protection of the law is not subject to you, and the electorate’s, opinion.

    When you understand that FACT, you will no longer be preceived as the bigot that you are.

    You’ve no rational argument to support the denial of my rights, all you have is your prejudice. All you have is the idea that somehow I should not have my rights respected while your rights are respected because you preceive some difference between us. The only difference between us is that you are a bigot, and I am not.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
  47. moonbat patrol says:

    #33 Quit equating slavery with so called gay “marriage” that’s utterly ridiculous. and thing about taking away choice that’s called either socialism or tyranny! stop and think what you are saying! I expect the same crazy replies from the usual suspects here but no matte how long you stamp your feet and cry and hold your breath there will never be so called gay “marriage” in America.
    I stand 100% behind my point that this is not about civil rights or marriage this is about legitimizing deviant sexual behavoir. You are never going to change my mind and you certainly are never going to change the minds of the majority of Americans minds. You are doing your little cause a disservice because the stronger you push the stronger we will push back. The backlash against you will once and for all silence your ridiculous endeavor to legitimize sexual deviancy.
    beside nobody is saying you can’t be queer what’s the problem?? when will it all end? are you going to go for affirmitave action and reparations for gays next??
    What’s the next boundary to be breached? polygamy, beastilaity,kiddie sex??

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
  48. moonbat patrol says:

    Bigot: anybody that disagrees with a liberal.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
  49. Chas. says:

    #42 So, I take it you have told your gay friends (if you have any) that you firmly stand against “gay marriage” and are for them being denied Hospital Visitation Rights, Health Insurance, Spousal Privilege, Retirement Savings, Social Security Benefits and a host of other “rights” that you can easily enjoy … and that means you don’t “hate” them?

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
  50. Big John says:
  51. Linda says:

    two consenting adults, that is deviant to you? Why are you a homophobe? I don’t even get the religious part of the problem. It does not say anything about two women being together, does it? It does however say something about people being put to death for adultry.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
  52. 3rdman says:

    Those evil gays (black people) are destroying good society. If we let the gays (blacks) have rights, our way of life will be destroyed. These evil activist judges want to let them get married (vote) and everyone knows that the second you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile. If you want to save the American way and traditional values, I say we should stop gays from getting married (blacks from voting).

    Wow, look, all of the same wingnut arguments apply! I’m sure the founding fathers wanted us to have mandatory religion in schools and discriminate against everyone who wasn’t a white Christian. Thats the reason this country was founded, wasn’t it? /sarcasm

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
  53. Krazny says:

    Most people who are so actively opposed to gay marriage, either don’t know a gay person, or have any gay friends.

    You are wrong moonbat, eventually in 20-30 years gay marriage will be legal. No it will not lead to polygamy, or any of the other things you mentioned. This is between consenting adults. It does not include children or animals. Why don’t you go hang out with Fred Phelps. you can protest at a few soldiers funerals with him, you two seem to have lots in common.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
  54. MNW says:

    This isn’t about “liberal vs conservative”…this is about freedom and justice..FOR ALL.

    But I wouldn’t expect a deluded bigot to understand, much less recognize, that FACT.

    The greatest thing being threatened by so-called “values” voters, is American values.

    Remember those?

    No longer are the American values of freedom and justice FOR ALL celebrated, the deluded have replaced those values with the silly ideas of their Christianist leaders. Denial and obfuscation are what Christianists now uphold as American “values”.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
  55. kelso rich says:

    deviant sexual behavoir

    So deviant sexual behavior only happens between persons of the same sex? Have you ever taken a look at internet porn?!

    The backlash against you will once and for all silence your ridiculous endeavor to legitimize sexual deviancy.
    beside nobody is saying you can’t be queer what’s the problem??

    Mmm k..so you can be queer, just not ’sexually deviant” care to explain just wtf ’sexual deviancy’ is??

    I think it’s sexually deviant to have loofah and falafel fetishes. Ann Coulter’s sex change operation is pretty deviant as well. I read the prestigious National Enquirer who’s headline was “Bush cheated on Lara with Condi” Condi is black! That should have your panities in a bunch moonbat!

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
  56. Big John says:

    libs are professional victims. they got all the arguments down pat. copy and paste, change the title, blah blah blah.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
  57. moonbat patrol says:

    BIGOT: anybody who disagrees with a liberal.
    #55 see liberals are deviants, you proved my point.
    homosexuality has nothing to do with slavery. using the National enquirer gives you real crediblity there little fella.
    #56 you are so right! all libs consider themselves victims. victimization is the cottage industry of the left. if you want something just call yourself a victim.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
  58. Krazny says:

    libs are professional victims. they got all the arguments down pat. copy and paste, change the title, blah blah blah.

    Comment by Big John — July 6, 2006 @ 12:39 pm

    This coming from a group who have played the victim card so often they just hold it up. War on Christians, war on Christmas, war on easter, war on conservatives. “The liberals are holding us back” Blah blah blah. I didn’t copy and paste anything. I used arguments that I have used before. you are unable to counter so you attack.

    LOL who is the “victim”?

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
  59. MNW says:

    libs are professional victims.

    Yeah, that’s why you were whining about being called the bigot that you are.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
  60. Chas. says:

    BIGOT: One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
  61. Parrotlover77 says:

    libs are professional victims. they got all the arguments down pat. copy and paste, change the title, blah blah blah.

    Comment by Big John — July 6, 2006 @ 12:39 pm

    Whoa I was just about ready to say the same thing about bigoted homophobic wingnuts. WEIRD.

    “Wahhh! My way of life will be ruined if somebody else has their own civil right to marry whom they choose! Also, God will be angry and attack New Orleans again with a hurricane. Wait… I liked it when that happened the first time because I like to see brown people suffer. I think God does too. Such a dilema! Still, it’s immoral! WAAHHHH!!! Where’d my wife go? She needs to get her barefoot and pregnant butt back to the dishes!”

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
  62. kelso rich says:

    #55 see liberals are deviants, you proved my point

    I fail to see how I proved your point, care to finish explaining just wtf a “sexual deviant” is? Is it something that you can define, or something that you just ‘feel in your gut’ like every other right wing point of view?

    The enquirer bit was not meant to be serious, but the national enquirer did seem to be prestigious enough when it came to a Clinton extra-marital affair.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
  63. Big John says:

    libs love the right to choose. ’til you choose something they dont like. then you are a bigot. then the lib is a victim. poor lib.

    July 6th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
  64. moonbat patrol says:

    Bigot: what a liberal says when he/she/it loses and argument.
    parrotlover nice name! so you like sex with parrots?? poor little perico! I suppose you support the right to marry your parrot. i mean in case you want it’s inheritance or want to vist it in the hospital.
    funny, most blacks I know would kick your punk liberal ass for equating queers with their civil rights and slavery.
    sounds like you are the racist bigoted one. anyone that disagrees is a barefoot hick right you little racist. I know a bunch of white folks who would kick your punk liberal ass for that one.
    liberals are the biggest bigots to ever walk the earth.

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
  65. moonbat patrol says:

    true bigot: a liberal/progressive .

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
  66. Big John says:
  67. moonbat patrol says:

    GOOD NEWS! according to CNN Georgia just reinstated it’s ban on so called gay “marriage:. 45 states now haveoutright bans on so called gay “marriage” only Taxachussets has outright gay “marriage” and Vermont and Connecticut allow for “civil unions”.
    we are winning the battle for common sense in America!!!!!!!

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
  68. Big John says:

    good news for america = bad news for the libs

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
  69. Krazny says:

    While moonbat patrol and big john continue the circle jerk, I guess I will get back to work. Neither of them, assuming they are in fact seperate people, doubtful given the amount of high fiving going on, will change their minds.

    Sorry guys you are wrong. eventually the idea that two people of the same sex will be afforded the same rights as a heterosexual couple will happen. Mayby not today, and maybe not tomorrow.but sooner or later. As for the bigot statements, you both have an irrational hatred/fear of homosexuals. That is bigoted.

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
  70. 3rdman says:

    #64, Blacks would kick my ass for equating civil rights and gay marriage? Um, okay, I live in South Carolina. My ass has yet to be kicked even though there are black people everywhere here. My high school was majority black, didn’t get my ass kicked there for saying it in front of lots of black people. My college has 20% or so black people, haven’t got my ass kicked there either. Wow, I’m seeing a pattern!

    No “white folks” have kicked my “punk liberal ass” either, another big surprise. Why all the threats of violence anyway?

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
  71. kelso rich says:

    Why don’t Big John and Moonbat just get married?

    I’m growing tired of the virtual butt-humping between you two.

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
  72. Jason M. Hendler says:

    Again, if legislators were the “leaders” they claim to be, they would create a solution to this impasse in which everyone gets something, like civil unions. Homosexuals would get the “rights” they desire, conservatives could “preserve” the institution of marriage and legislators would actually accomplish something.

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
  73. Big John says:

    70, You have never uttered those wors outside of your basement, and the internet. Get a grip, you know it, and we know it. Not even a nice try.

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
  74. Krazny says:

    Why solve the problem when you can continue to use it as a wedge issue Jason. The gay marriage issue has worked well for the republicans as a way to whip up the base when needed, much the abortion issue. I personally would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Not because I feel abortion should be outlawed, but then the people who will only vote on that one issue might look a little deeper, and think before voting.

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
  75. Big John says:

    civil unions with all the rights have already been offered. turned down. they must have marriage. nothing else will suffice

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
  76. Bruce Gorton says:

    Okay, my feelings on this:

    It’s the law, it was ruled on, the big thing now is to change the law.

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
  77. kelso rich says:

    But civil unions would be giving the homo’s an inch and they’ll take a mile.

    According to Moonfag Patrol if you give ‘em civil unions:
    What’s the next boundary to be breached? polygamy, beastilaity,kiddie sex??

    The next boundary to be breached will be the end of homophobia. (after all the old bigots die off) Change is inevitable, it just takes generations, not election cycles.

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
  78. Big John says:

    or; move on to things which are important to everyone not just one group. let it go for awhile

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
  79. Parrotlover77 says:

    Bigot: what a liberal says when he/she/it loses and argument.
    parrotlover nice name! so you like sex with parrots?? poor little perico! I suppose you support the right to marry your parrot. i mean in case you want … [ad naseum]
    Comment by moonbat patrol — July 6, 2006 @ 1:01 pm

    Man this post cracked me up! I feel like I’m arguing with a 10 year old.

    I’m trying to decide whether moonbat patrol will feel like he/she stuck his/her foot in his/her mouth if I let him/her know that I was married to a wonderful, caring, beautiful, intelligent woman who passed away last year very young (26) and the parrots I adore so much were our “children” and we (my feathered family and myself) have helped each other through a very tough year without her.

    Nah, wingnuts don’t have silly things like “feelings” or “morals” or any notion of “guilt” or “responsibilty.” Especially when it comes to animals and animal rights (a WHOLE nother argument)!

    Man, it makes my day upsetting them so much and getting under the trolls’ skin!!

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
  80. Right says:

    I’m a firm believer in letting the legislature determine law. I’m also (strangely enough) in favor of extending marital rights to homosexuals. I think the legal definition of marriage should be put in writing that defines marriage as the union of two consenting adults – and all legal protections that are guaranteed by legally bound partners be given to that union. However, I believe it is the job of the legislature to undertake that task and make the law pass. I find it hard to believe, that in a state as strongly liberal as New York, they would be unable to pass that law.

    I hate Massachusetts (where I live) with a passion, and its state government and national representation, but I have to defend them here. After the court made its decision, the state government passed a law which was ratified. Yes, a reactionary judge was the catalyst (like the Supreme Court that abolished segregation), but the judiciary came through with the law (compare it to the ERA).

    Here’s what I think needs to happen in regards to the word marriage – it is struck from all legal documentation and is held only for the church to preside over. Make all unions between consenting adults become Civil Unions as recognized by the state and federal governments. Use the word “spouse” not “husband” or “wife”. Let the church determine whether or not the union can be recognized as a marriage within the faith. Let marriage become a religious institution, and let “civil unions” become the standard phrasing for legal recognition of unions between two consenting adults.

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
  81. Parrotlover77 says:

    #80 – Comment by Right — July 6, 2006 @ 1:38 pm

    I think that is a fine idea! You are normally conservative leaning, I’m guessing by your opinions on Mass’ government and the “strangely enough” statement?

    I really like that idea becuase the churches can use the word “marriage” all they want in a RELIGIOUS setting, while everybody from a legal standpoint gets the same rights of property protection, tax benefits, and so on…

    It’s win-win, but unfortunately religious fundamentalists feel that protecting “marriage” means legislating away civil unions for non-heterosexual couples as well.

    Besides, the media will spin it as “congress wants to outlaw marriage” or something silly like that.

    Sigh, it’s too bad. I really do like that idea.

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
  82. Constitution lover says:

    RE: #11 from Democratic Soldier
    Yes, the Supreme Court did at one time uphold “separate but equal” after slavery was outlawed and that women couldn’t (not shouldn’t) vote. It also upheld slavery at one point too. In each case the Supreme Court followed its Constitutional duty – it clarified what the Constitution said about the issue. It’s not the job of the Supreme Court to change the Constitution. That’s what Amendments are for.

    In fact, that’s what happened.
    - Slavery. The People wanted it ended and enacted the 13th Amendment.
    - Women’s vote. The People wanted it allowed and enacted the 19th Amendment.
    - Equal Access. The People wanted it and voted in Civil Rights legislation. No Amendment was necessary in this case.

    You are correct that times change, but wrong to call this a “wrong headed decision”. The Constitution (as written) doesn’t allow for “gay marriage”. Don’t like it? Push for an Amendment. You seem confident that the People are on your side. Go for it. That’s the beauty of our system of government.

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
  83. Right says:

    82 – The Constitution as written has nothing either protecting, granting, or prohibitin marriage of any type.

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
  84. Randy says:

    #72

    You can’t appease a liberal. They want it all and have gotten it through the court system, their last stakehold on power, but not for long. Moonbat is right. Allow gay marriage and what is to stop the next interest group from getting their way. In fact, why have any rules at all. Lets just have one big orgy everyday.

    Kranzy, you will probably get your wish next year, but this is an issue where you will lose. The country has turned a whole lot more conservative since the decision and probably as a result of it.

    July 6th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
  85. Davey says:

    Say I think the NY Court got it right. I’m all for a discussion of marriage. While we’re talking about the supposed “rights” of any two people to marry why don’t we bring children into the mix. I would support gay marriage but I don’t agree with denying children a mother AND a father. This is insane (and selfish) for us to think of this as beginning and ending with the rights of gays. What about the right of a boy to a father. I guess we can’t bring ourselves to talk about that. I’m not about to steal fathers from children. Any other progressive who wants that on their soul in the name of equal rights, go for it. I know it would be on me if I voted for “equality” without regard for the right of a child to a mom and a dad.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
  86. Matt says:

    Why does everyone forget that this isn’t a pure democracy? People don’t get to vote on everything. That’s why this is a republic, not a democracy. Our Founding Fathers didn’t trust stupid people to make decision so they took the power out of their hands. So saying “It’s for the people to decide” is the most un-American thing you can say. Mill was right in saying democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority. We come closer and closer to it everyday. If these so-called patriotic conservatives knew anything about what America actually stands for, they would know that Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers against a direct democracy. The Framers of the Constitution knew that a democracy would lead to the oppression of the individual so they designed the nation to protect individuals from the majority.

    Letting the people decide is the most unpatriotic and un-American thing to do. America stands for equality. Not for hate.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
  87. Davey says:

    Liberals and progressives are voting to steal fathers and mothers from future children. All in the name of “equality”. How do you sleep at night, you immoral do-gooders? You are the ones stealing dads away and stealing moms away from future kids.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
  88. Krazny says:

    Randy,

    the overturning of Roe v. Wade would be the worse thing to happen the republican party since desegregation.

    Davey,

    If a child is an orphan, would it not be better for them to have parents, instead of living as an orphan? Your argument, that a child has a right to a mother and a father is a bit off, and here is why.

    1.) an adopted child by definition has neither a mother or a father. What about the right of the child to be loved, clothed, and fed.

    2.) any children who are biologically the child of one of the gay parents, would have a mother or a father. In fact they might share custody, or something similar.

    Just my thoughts anyway.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
  89. Right says:

    #86 Matt – The only people I’ve heard clamoring for direct democracy have been Democrats after the last two presidential elections.

    Now, that aside – no one is suggesting the “people” decide. I’m suggesting the legislature decides. That’s what they’re elected to do. Judges are not put into position to enact law. They’re put there to determine the constitutionality of law and to uphold justice. Legislators are given the power to create law, the executors are given power to enact and enforce the law, and the judiciators are given the power to determine whether that law is correct.

    As such, it is up to the state governments to determine policy on homosexual unions – not the state courts.

    Once again – it should be legal, but it should be determined through law, not court decisions – just like the 13th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, and the Equal Rights Act.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
  90. Seixon says:

    I thought that perhaps this might be a good place to get an explanation for something that I have never understood.

    You have civil unions, and then you have marriage, right?

    Now, why do gay people want to have marriage instead of civil unions, even though they would both give them the same rights?

    Isn’t it all about gay people having the same rights? Now if civil unions give them these rights, why isn’t that enough?

    Is the government supposed to tell a church that they have to allow gay marriage? Wouldn’t that be crossing the separation of church and state?

    I support giving gay couples the same rights as heterosexual ones, but I cannot understand the obsession with “marriage” when civil unions would give the same exact rights.

    As an atheist, I cannot see myself getting married in a church, which would have me getting a civil union, correct?

    Please help me understand this guys.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
  91. Davey says:

    Krazny,

    Do you realize that in order to continue to defend gay marriage you’ve gone from the normal “gay marriage” situation to a situation where a child is adopted. Most of the time, you’ll not get adoption, they’ll inseminate. or have a surrogate mother this becomes especially likely if you legitimize gay marriage as an instutition. You’ll have 7 million couples seeking children.

    Are you really satisfied with the mother maybe having a relationship with the child, as you say. Kranzy, this is crazy. That’s not the way it should be. A child should have a mom, not just a biological mother that you can point to and say “that’s where you came from” You’re going way out on a limb to defend the indefensible.

    The point about a child having the right to be loved is important but not perhaps not mutually exclusive to either relationship. In otherwords, all things being equal you’ll get just as much love in either arrangement. So what exactly is your point?

    Kranzy, with all your maybes, and shared custody statements, you’re just putting a child in a less than desirable situation. Look at how far you have to go “out there” to defend this. That should tell you something.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
  92. Right says:

    90 – That’s exactly why I advocate getting rid of the term “marriage” in legal documentation. All unions recognized by the government should be termed “civil unions”. Leave the term marriage for the Church to consider.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
  93. Krazny says:

    I am not really sure on the overall legal terms. What seperates a civil union from a marriage. I know in some states. Two people living together for an extended period of time can be considered a civil union, even if paperwork has not been filled out. I do know that the counties have you fill out a marriage license.

    I also know as a married couple, my wife and I are taxed differently etc….

    As for the government telling a church they have to perform a gay marriage, I am against. I think churches should have the right to allow or deny as they please. Do I think it’s right? no, but I also would not expect a synagouge, or mosque to perform a christian ceremony.

    As for being an athiest, at least in King county of Washington State, you would still be married. It is after all a marraige license. Says so right on the thing.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
  94. Davey says:

    Siexon,

    I’ll help you understand it. Its about demanding acceptance of their lives by getting in on marriage. Its about saying I’m no different than you, respect me, like me, value me. That’s it on a pyscological level. Thats the deal. As you corrected observed there is a path of much less resistance to accomplishing every legal benefit given by marriage and that is a simple power of attorney. However, gays unfortunately are making a hugely strategic blunder by going after marriage. I for one, will never accept gay marriage, even though I accept gays as fellow citizens, friends, ect.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
  95. Krazny says:

    LOL

    funny davey, I noticed you didn’t touch the adoption part of what I said. I am sorry if you feel I am wrong. I’m unsure why it is indefesible. How about his davey why should a young mother be forced to bear a child, that will most likely keep her, and the child in poverty all of her life. It increases the chance of drug use and crime?

    Who about forcing someone to live in poverty because you have a holier then thou attitude. That is indefensible. Giving a child a home, and a life why is that terrible?

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
  96. Davey says:

    Krazny,

    But I most certainly did address your adoption exception. You favored maybe having shared custody with the mother (assuming male-male gay marriage). I found that to be unenforceable and less than desirable for the child.

    In the case of adoption we both agree that a child is better off in either situation, rather than in a orphans home. However, that doesn’t argue for gay marriage, it argues that gay adoption is simple prefereable to no family at all.

    All things being equal, that is taking the hypothetical gay couple vs. straight couple, both normal, both loving ect, only one couple provides a boy with both a mother and father. It is in the best interest of the boy to have both. It is immoral to deny him that.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
  97. Right says:

    Krazny – my point is that a Civil Union, as recognized in Vermont, is a specific legal term whereby you have to apply for and obtain a license, and have a justice of the peace or other appointed state official preside over the union.

    That’s what should be necessary. The license my wife and I obtained from the state of Vermont when we got married in a church, should be the same as the license of the person who goes to the justice of the peace. The church, since it did the ceremony, would recognize us as a married couple, but the government, which authorized the union, should recognize us a legal partners.

    Using the term marriage will continue to draw the ire of Christians who don’t believe in homosexual unions and don’t want the same term to be used to describe both. Giving them that peace is a way to ensure that two consenting adults can gain legal protections of a union, while maintaining the independence of the church and what it legally recognizes under its tenets of faith.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
  98. Krazny says:

    Can you prove that assertion Davey? do you have statistics, that show a boy raised in a gay home, is somehow less advantaged then one raised in a straight home?

    you throw out alot of hype, but I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
  99. Seixon says:

    Krazny & Davey,

    OK, that’s pretty much what I thought. Gays want to have “marriage” just on the superficial level, and not because civil unions don’t give you the same rights. What a bunch of crock.

    Look, homosexual couples are different than heterosexual couples. That is a fact. Thus, why shouldn’t there be different titles for a union between one and the other? I can see how gay people would like to be “the same” as everyone else, but that just isn’t the case. It’s delusional.

    If you’re proud of being gay, you should be proud of having your own form of a union as well. I mean, it sounds almost as if black people were to go around demanding that people call them white. Gay people are gay, and a union between two gay people is not the same thing as a union between two heterosexual people. It’s really that simple.

    Now go get your equal rights with civil unions and stop creating such a moronic issue out of the whole damn thing. It’s friggin ridiculous. Has the civil rights movement seriously run out of things to fight for so they start making an issue over the name of something instead of the substance??? Jeez.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
  100. Davey says:

    How about his davey why should a young mother be forced to bear a child, that will most likely keep her, and the child in poverty all of her life. It increases the chance of drug use and crime?

    Because killing the child in the womb so that the mother avoids poverty is immoral. Killing a child for his own sake is indefensible. And if you want to do that, wait until the child is born and you ask the child when he’s old enough to understand if you can end his life for the greater good.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
  101. Krazny says:

    I agree with you right. I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage in any way. It is usually a religious ceremony. Perhaps the best thing would be for the US to rethink how the government approaches marraige.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
  102. Right says:

    Seixon – what you fail to recognize is that most states won’t even allow civil unions.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
  103. Davey says:

    an you prove that assertion Davey? do you have statistics, that show a boy raised in a gay home, is somehow less advantaged then one raised in a straight home?

    Krazny, see how far you are going out there to defend this? If you cannot tell the unique contribution of a father to a son on your own then you maybe missing something in your life. I’m sorry pal.

    I’m going to end this here. I enjoyed the back and forth.

    Davey

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
  104. Seixon says:

    Right,

    Well then that’s what they should be fighting for, instead of trying to take on the massively Christian nation that is the United States which will never give them Gay Marriage. You almost get the feeling that those fighting for Gay Marriage are only doing so to bash Republicans over the head with and have some sort of “oppression” to whine about. Meanwhile, most Democrats won’t approve of Gay Marriage either. Doh!

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
  105. kelso rich says:

    I for one, will never accept gay marriage, even though I accept gays as fellow citizens, friends, ect. -Davey

    Well davey,
    When you and the other bigots are dead we’ll get our constitutional amendment passed. If it’s happening in the rest of the western world, it will eventually happen here as well.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
  106. Krazny says:

    I see so you would rather have the child grow up to possibly be a criminal, and in a life of poverty, then allow a teenage mother a choice. Real compassionate there.

    Another question Davey, you have this whole thing about a child has a right to a mother and a father. You seem to be okay with gays adopting, just not having children biologically. What right do you have to tell someone they can’t reproduce?

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
  107. PCon says:

    Listen, extremists on BOTH sides of this issue are wrong. I’m a proud moderate on this issue. Legitimize civil unions for same sex couples with all the benefits that are granted to opposite sex married couples. See, I support equal rights for all.

    BUT…the word “marriage” should be reserved for the special institution that is best suited, as deemed by the majority of our nation, for the upbringing of children. And as a majority of this nation believes, fathers and mothers DO matter. 2 mothers don’t miraculously replace a father, and 2 fathers don’t miraculously replace a mother. Only a father can teach that a man is worthy of being a consistent provider of unconditional love balanced with discipline, and a only a mother can teach that a woman is also a worthy provider of that as well.

    And if you make the argument that extended family or family friends can step in and fulfill those roles for a child, well, you’ve just admitted that the same sex couple is not the ideal institution for child rearing and they need outside help, haven’t you?

    Don’t get me wrong: I know millions of gay people can and do make equally good, and in many cases, BETTER parents than do straight people. But fathers and mothers matter.

    Gay people do indeed deserve equal rights, and I believe legally-recognized civil unions, with the granting of marriage benefits, demonstrates that. But marriage must continue to mean something else.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
  108. Parrotlover77 says:

    Krazny & Davey,

    OK, that’s pretty much what I thought. Gays want to have “marriage” just on the superficial level, and not because civil unions don’t give you the same rights. What a bunch of crock.

    Separate, but “equal.” Hasn’t worked in the past, won’t work in the future. Either marriage is replaced with civil unions across the board for everybody (a la Right’s suggested plan), or everybody has access to “marriage.” But having one for one group and one for the other, no matter how similar they are intended to be, will lead to bigotry and unequal treatment. That was the idea behind “white only” and “black only” water fountains, bathrooms, restaurants, emergency rooms, schools, and so on. Bigotry is not sustainable and not healthy.

    Aside from the legal argument of why gay marriage is not currently allowed (all of which are very arguable points on both sides of the isle), what really is wrong with homosexuals marrying? I just don’t see how this is any kind of “slippery slope.” I see things like “next adults will want to marry children!” What the hell? How can anybody honestly think that legal homosexual marriage will increase pedophilia or will bring pedophiles out of hiding to want to demand more rights for themselves? I fear that the people who think that would be the case have suppressed their own “urges” which (maybe) they have control over but fear others do not. That is a scary thought, indeed, but I just don’t get it.

    I mean if you are against it because you believe your religion is against it, that’s a fair argument for having that opinion. I don’t agree with it and think it is very misguided, but that is a reasonable path of logic for somebody who’s happiness and belief structure is supported heavily by a religion that preaches those principles. Asking you to turn on those principles can feel like turning on your religion altogether. So, therefore, you have your opinion and will likely vote and lobby for it.

    But these insane arguments with ZERO proof from any credible source (for instance, show me reputable psychiatric studies on if homosexuality leads to pedophilia or if boys raised by two mothers will be unhappy in life) get VERY annoying and tiring VERY quick.

    On the “right to a mother and father” subject… What say you about single heterosexual moms and dads? I mean if two moms or two dads is going to screw up the kid because they don’t have the opposite sex in their life, how is that worse than one mom or one dad?

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
  109. Davey says:

    Pcon you wrote:

    UT…the word “marriage” should be reserved for the special institution that is best suited, as deemed by the majority of our nation, for the upbringing of children. And as a majority of this nation believes, fathers and mothers DO matter.

    Answer: If marriage is best suited and infact superior to gay marriage in child rearing as you write. Why should civil unions get the benefits of marriage, when in your own words above you acknowledge they don’t provide the same benefit to society (ie a child reared by a mother and father). Don’t play a word game to appease people or seem above it all. This country was founded on guts, not willy nilly appeasing everyone. These are principles we are dealing with here, not semantics.

    If gay marriage is inferior to traditional marriage (in providing mother and father) it logically flows that it shouldn’t recieve the same benefits as marriage.

    July 6th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
  110. Parrotlover77 says:

    Listen, extremists on BOTH sides of this issue are wrong. I’m a proud moderate on this issue. Legitimize civil unions for same sex couples with all the benefits that are granted to opposite sex married couples. See, I support equal rights for all.

    Ugh. No offense as I am glad you are proud, but I dislike being called an “extremist” for having an opinion. Sometimes moderates can annoy me more than right wingers because they feel that since they straddle the isle, well gosh they must be right about everything!

    Also, who the heck says marriage must result in children? I know quite a few happy child-free married couples (myself included, before I was widowed). The fact is that we don’t live in the 1950s anymore. Couples, families, and marriages, come in all shapes and sizes now!

    July 6th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
  111. Seixon says:

    But having one for one group and one for the other, no matter how similar they are intended to be, will lead to bigotry and unequal treatment. That was the idea behind “white only” and “black only” water fountains, bathrooms, restaurants, emergency rooms, schools, and so on. Bigotry is not sustainable and not healthy.

    Eh, aside from the fact that many heterosexual couples also get civil unions…. Marriage is tied to religion and the church, while civil unions are tied to the government and determinations on taxes and legal rights, etc.

    You can’t even try to convince me that the “black only” water fountains, bathrooms, and restaurants were anywhere near as good as the “white only” ones. Many places you have this “white only” and “black only” or “asian only” or “latino only” thing happening all on its own. The difference is that it is created by demand and not necessarily unequal at all.

    How would there exist bigotry against gay couples because they have civil unions? There will always exist bigotry against gay people, just like there will always exist racism. Whether or not they have civil unions or marriage has absolutely nothing to do with that.

    July 6th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
  112. Davey says:

    Parrotlover77,

    Problems happen, like single parenting and divorce, but that doesn’t mean you create an institution to celebrate single-mom-dome. (sorry I don’t know how to say that).

    July 6th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
  113. Krazny says:

    One point I think everyone is missing. If all marriages were turned into civil unions. It would be up to the churches to define a marriage. There are churches in this country that support gay marriage. It would eventually mean, that all couples would be in a civil union, and just as many could be married. If all it takes is a ministers pronouncment.

    As for your idea Sexion, sorry but while it may look shiny and new, it really is the old seperate but equal idea.

    July 6th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
  114. Davey says:

    You wrote:

    I see so you would rather have the child grow up to possibly be a criminal, and in a life of poverty, then allow a teenage mother a choice. Real compassionate there.

    Answer: Ummm… yes Krazny, I would rather a child have a POSSIBILITY of growing up a criminal and poor than be killed in the womb. Crazy me.

    July 6th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
  115. Seixon says:

    Krazny,

    Eh, the only problem is that the “separate but equal” was never actually “equal”. With civil unions, not only gays would have them, but many heterosexual couples also have civil unions. That defeats the entire “seperate but equal” framing.

    July 6th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
  116. Parrotlover77 says:

    Parrotlover77,

    Problems happen, like single parenting and divorce, but that doesn’t mean you create an institution to celebrate single-mom-dome. (sorry I don’t know how to say that).

    Comment by Davey — July 6, 2006 @ 3:07 pm

    This may come as a shock to you, but some people have children out of wedlock — heck not even in coupledom sometimes! There is more to marriage than squirting out children.

    Who says society (so to speak) celebrates the institution as a whole? Marriage may include a party and it may be a celebration for the couple involved, but society is celebrating the institution of marriage? Give me a break. I married my wife because I wanted to spend the rest of my life with her. It really is that simple. Some people seriously don’t think that far ahead.

    July 6th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
  117. Ben says:

    While I am Pro Gay Marriage, I think the Court was correct in their decision. This is an issue that we the people should decide. Every state should have Gay marriage as a ballot question. Then each state can decide themselves.

    July 6th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
  118. Krazny says:

    Equal would mean that gays could get civil unions or be married. Equal would not mean having the same rights, just not being called the same thing.

    Davey,

    then you need help. You know as well as I do that poverty greatly increases the chance of criminal behavior. You would rather pay for incarceration, or welfare programs, then to combat the primary root cause of crime. I wonder how you would feel if a violent crime happened to you or one of you family members?

    Lets go back to rights briefly. What about a child’s right to not go to bed hungry? To receive and education, to not be beaten by thier parents or abused by their relatives. To have clothes and shelter. To be a child. You are all alike. any concern for children seems to end once the come out of the womb.

    July 6th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
  119. Davey says:

    Yeah but there is no denying that procreation and child rearing are an essential part of the institution of marriage. Not that they are all that matters, certainly love matters. But its not all about love. Love is like oxygen to a marriage but its not everything. Do you really think that society created all these benefits, all these honors and the elevated standing just because you love your partner. No way. Society created benefits for marriage because society benefits from the procreative and child rearing acts that are a part of marriage.

    The hard truth is, and this isn’t so romantic, but marriage is more than love and committment, true those are essential, but marriage is also about procreation and child rearing.*

    *ps please don’t write to me and say the institution isn’t real because a few people cannot or will not bring children into the world. Every spec of the universe has an exceptional component. All rules have exceptions, but just because we acknowledge them as true, doesn’t mean they invalidate the general rule for if they did objective truth and all judgements would be impossible.

    July 6th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
  120. MNW says:

    Denying gay couples the right to legally marry will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent gay couples from being parents.

    We will still be parents.

    This decision is stupid…and based solely on bigotry and prejudice.

    Claim all you want that marriage is about “protecting the interests of children”…but it won’t change the FACT that gay people are already parents and will continue to be parents.

    July 6th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
  121. Davey says:

    Krazny,

    All the things you speak of, poverty, emotional depravation of any sort are possible outcomes, temporary, changeable and overcomeable with effort and some luck. Death is final and as such it is the wrong choice. As the child comes of age he may very well overcome these obsticals or he may not experience them at all.

    In anycase, its the child’s right to life that supercedes the mother’s right to kill him or “choose” as you say. Her right, extends to her life, not to lord power over his. Your mother had no right to kill you in the womb. You and I are both special.

    July 6th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
  122. matt says:

    “While I am Pro Gay Marriage, I think the Court was correct in their decision. This is an issue that we the people should decide. Every state should have Gay marriage as a ballot question. Then each state can decide themselves.”

    With respect, I think the people have already decided, either through their legislatures or by constitutional amendments. The homosexual activists went to court to avoid a decision by the people.

    July 6th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
  123. Scarlette says:

    This whole line of argument is entertaining.

    -Moonbat- do you honestly think that people would choose to have a relationship, emotional and physical, with someone they’re not attracted to? Yeah, because that makes perfect sense.
    - Big John- a bigot is a person who holds prejudices towards large groups of people. You hold a prejudice that 10% of the population of the planet shouldn’t be allowed to legally declare a life-attachment to a consenting adult partner. That is bigotry, plain and simple.

    The following countries recognize some form of same-sex couple unions,: Canada, The Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, New Zealand, Portugal, Switzerland (easily the country who’s pissed off the least amount of people ever), South Africa, most of Australia, and the United Kingdom. Look chicken little, the sky hasn’t fallen yet!

    I thought we were supposed to be the most progressive nation on Earth. How in Papi’s name is SOUTH AFRICA legalizing gay marriage before we are? It was ruled in 2002 there that it was discriminatory not to allow same sex marriage, thus unconstitutional. That, my friends, is why the US will not be the world leader within my lifetime. We’re too busy debating whether or not Jesus blessed the spade to just call it a spade.

    If you want to talk about child abuse, talk about born again Christians who believe the bibe said to discipline their children, and do so several times a day. Child abuse is teaching your children to hate what you fear. Children live in broken homes now; living with 2 gay people who love you is a lot better than living in a home where you’re not taken care of. I (female) had a boyfriend who had 2 Moms. It didn’t seem to effect him, except that he never flinched if I asked him to pick up a box of tampons at the store.

    If you want to talk about the sanctity of marriage, southerners (and, statistically, southern Baptists) have the highest divorce rate of any regional group. Connecticut has the least. Try practicing what you preach. For that matter, I think Las Vegas killed the sanctity of marriage long before a couple of well dressed men with jouged hair and Italian leather Pradas would even think of it.

    Their marriage does not lessen what you have with your spouse. If you think it does, you need to re-examine what you have with your spouse.

    July 6th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
  124. PCon says:

    I knew people would call me weak for daring to be a moderate on this issue (see #107), or think I was just playing a word game. I could see it even as I pressed the “Post” button. There IS a middle road to this position, and people have got to find it.

    The reality is that most people–certainly not all–who oppose gay marriage are NOT raging homophobes–they just want to preserve the message that mothers and fathers matter in the upbringing of children. As I said earlier: two mothers cannot replace a father and two fathers can’t replace a mother, and children need the unique values that can only be taught by each of them. Trotting out the extended family member to fulfill the opposite parent role is an admission that the same sex couple needs outside help in a critical role of childrearing because they simply cannot fill these roles themselves. For Parrotlover who says you don’t have to have kids: FINE. Civil unions fulfill your requirements of legally recognized unions with benefits. But “marriage” has a special definition (whether it says it in Webster’s or not), and most Americans want to preserve that special definition.

    This is NOT about bigotry. It’s about mothers and fathers actually mattering in the life of a child.

    Jeez.

    July 6th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
  125. Judge Hercules says:

    Although I am in full support of Gay rights (I dont think marriage should be a state institution in the first place) some degree of judicial formalism is absolutely necessary to mantain balance of powers so I am also in full support of this courts decision. Gay rights need to be handled by the state legislatures.

    The argument drawing a parallel between gay rights and segregation is absurd, unless they can show a specific reason why it applies uniquely to gay marriage. I can just make the same parallel with
    the right to rape children just by extending the time frame (all you pedophobes will be bigots in one hundred years)

    July 6th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
  126. Krazny says:

    I think the comparison would be more inline with inter-racial marriages, then with desegregation.

    July 6th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
  127. Zooey aka Zookeeper says:

    All I can think about right now is gay sex. :)

    July 6th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
  128. Publicus says:

    I don’t know about the legal basis of the ruling. However, some of the statements by the court in this case sounds really weak.

    “First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, (1) and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. … The Legislature could [also] rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience (2) suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.” 

 “The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. (3) We do not so conclude.”
    
1. A high percentage of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Of course, there are also heterosexual marriages with children who are abused or otherwise poorly cared for. We have no knowledge or evidence to expect better or worse from homosexual marriage. In any case, there is NO evidence supporting the court’s assertion that heterosexual marriage is characterized by stability that would elude homosexual marriage.

    2. The court asserts that, other things being equal, it’s better for a child to have heterosexual parents. The court cites intuition and experience—not evidence. One could reasonable assume that parents who are loving and supportive would be more important in child-rearing than the sexual preferences of the parents.

    3. Ruling to allow same-sex marriage wouldn’t say anything negative about those who never thought of it, or accept traditional marriage. However, actually banning homosexual marriage without a rational argument supported by evidence does suggest that, at least some opponents are irrational, ignorant or bigoted.

    July 6th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
  129. Publicus says:

    I don’t know about the legal basis of the ruling. However, some of the statements by the court in this case sounds really weak.

    “First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, (1) and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. … The Legislature could [also] rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience (2) suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.” 

 “The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. (3) We do not so conclude.”
    
1. A high percentage of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Of course, there are also heterosexual marriages with children who are abused or otherwise poorly cared for. We have no knowledge or evidence to expect better or worse from homosexual marriage. In any case, there is NO evidence supporting the court’s assertion that heterosexual marriage is characterized by stability that would elude homosexual marriage.

    2. The court asserts that, other things being equal, it’s better for a child to have heterosexual parents. The court cites intuition and experience—not evidence. One could reasonably assume that parents who are loving and supportive would be more important in child-rearing than the sexual preferences of the parents.

    3. Ruling to allow same-sex marriage wouldn’t say anything negative about those who never thought of it, or accept traditional marriage. However, actually banning homosexual marriage without a rational argument supported by evidence does suggest that, at least some opponents are irrational, ignorant or bigoted.

    July 6th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
  130. moonbat patrol says:

    BIGOT: somebody who disagrees with the looney left.
    apparently 45 states and the majority of American citizens agree with me that there will be no so called gay “marriage”.
    it is you liberals here that are bigoted and prejudiced against tradition, the family, normalcy, religion, and America itself. The juvenile ramblings amongst yoyurselves here is hilarious. while 76 % of voters in Georgia rejected so called gay “marriage” and 44 other states rightfully have statutes against this ridiculous concept.
    with arguments like I have read here it is no wonder that you people lost! all you got is bigotry, bigotry and more bigotry yet not one viable sane reason for so called gay”marriage”. not one.

    July 6th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
  131. Scott says:

    its amazing the arguments that are used to deny equal marriage rights:

    1- its bad for the children to not have a mother AND father. This isn’t about children. this is about two consenting, loving adults. period. That children enter the picture is a separate argument.
    2- marriage should be for procreation. well then at the same time we must ban infertile, elderly, and those couples that dont want to have kids from getting married.
    3- it will lead to polygamy or beastiality. OH please! this is about TWO consenting adults. Marriage confers rights that cannot be exercised by polygamist couples (If you are incapacitated, what happens when one spouse wants one treatment and the other spouse wants a different treatment for you?)
    4- its against “my” religion. Guess what… MY religion is perfectly fine with it. Besides, have you ever heard of the first amendment freedom OF religion? Stop trying to choke me with your dogma. (as an aside, why do so many people pick and choose issues from the OLD testament to enforce, while ignoring others? sounds slightly hypocritical to me)
    5- Homosexuality isnt normal. beg to differ but science is proving otherwise it occurs in most species and regardless whether you believe its a choice or genetic… whats it to you? if you dont like it DONT DO IT!
    6- marriage must be protected. FROM WHAT? how does allowing two consenting adults to get married affect your marriage? personally the Brittany Spears and Elizabeth Taylors of the world have caused more damage. Lets outlaw ALL divorce before we worry that two women getting married might end all life on earth.
    7- Children shouldnt be allowed to be raised by gays. This goes back to item #1. whether or not same sex marriage is allowed, gays will have and raise children, period. its happening already and it will happen whether or not same sex marriage is approved or denied. (unless of course you want to ban same sex adoptions AND natural child birth via sterilization… How Orwellian!)
    8- Constitution, constitution, constitution… again The bill of rights is there to PROTECT individual rights, not restrict it. not to mention: IT IS THERE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY FROM THE OFTEN TIMES CORRUPT MAJORITY. “Activist” judges arent writing laws to allow same sex marriage. They are simply interpretting the Constitution the way the founders would have approved, by not denying a segment of the population rights that have already been taken for granted (and possibly even ruined) by the rest of the citizenry.

    Can ANYONE state ANY facts to PROVE why same sex marriage would be wrong? During your attempt, try to actually involve FACTS and not religious opinion or conjecture? In the years this argument has been going on, I have NEVER seen it done!

    July 6th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
  132. matt says:

    “its amazing the arguments that are used to deny equal marriage rights.”

    Before rights can be “denied” they have to exist in the first place. By using a rational basis standard of review the Court of Appeals recognizes that no fundamental right to homosexual “marriage” exists, and that sexuality is not a suspect classification.

    You might as well be arguing that the “rights” of two-year-olds to vote is being denied.

    July 6th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
  133. eblair says:

    Pcon–I think a lot of people would accept civil unions. Today’s decision doesn’t provide that, unfortunately. But yeah, I don’t think your position is crazy. Though I personally disagree that marriage needs to be reserved for one man, one woman, if gay men and lesbians could get all the benefits of marriage through a civil union, I think most people would be pretty happy. They could still get their union sanctioned by a church–that’s permissible now, even outside MA–it just doesn’t have any legal effect outside of MA

    July 6th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
  134. Scott says:

    “Before rights can be “denied” they have to exist in the first place. By using a rational basis standard of review the Court of Appeals recognizes that no fundamental right to homosexual “marriage” exists”

    One could easily argue they exist just as much as the right to heterosexual marriage exists. Well, that is until the American Taliban inflicts its religious dogma on society by writing adendums that say “marriage shall be construed to be only between one man and one woman” hence effectively taking away a right that you say never existed. If it never existed, why are these anti-marriage amendments and laws being written? Oh wait, its because good judges are actually interpretting the Constitution the way it SHOULD be… by granting equality under the law, not preventing it.

    July 6th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
  135. eblair says:

    132 where does the fundamental right for ANYONE to marry come from? check the NY constitution, the US Constitution. You won’t find it written in either place.

    Courts have interpreted the word “liberty” appearing in the due process claus to include the fundamental right to marry. But they had to decide that on their own–as they have made other decisions about what liberty means.

    You also mention suspect classifications. Neither the NY nor federal constitution mentions these either. Courts developed these concepts. I understand you don’t think it applies to gays and lesbians. Does it apply to racial groups? If so, the only reason it does, is because courts decided this–it was not spelled out in constitution or statute.

    Don’t mean to pick on you–others have made similar arguments here. My point is that the idea that judges simply apply the Constitution (state or federal) as written is a myth. There are plenty of circumstances under which judges develop principles not expressly stated in the Const. This is is necessary–concepts like due process (and liberty under due process) and equal protection are not spelled out.

    Constitutions are not civil codes, designed to address every conceivable situation. Judges have to, and do, make decisions about what general principles mean. If you reject this in the context of gay marriage, you have to reject in a lot of other contexts too–and if you reject it in those contexts, I’m not sure how the courts would apply principles like due process and equal protection to specific facts that come before them

    July 6th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
  136. Steve53 says:

    In a democratic society people get to vote on what type of society that they will live in. Every time so called gay “marriage” has been voted on it has been rightfully shot down. Then the gays tried to use the courts when they couldn’t sway popular opinion. Ther is absolutely no viable sound reason for gays to get amrried other than to force their lifestyle on America. and yes you can choose not to be queer if you so choose. homosexuality is the ultimate narccissm. the ultiamate manifestation of our selfish deviant society. It is an indicator of a society in moral decline.
    you will have about as much luck getting your so called gay “marriage” passed in America as snow in Miami in July. It’s never going to happen.
    right now even in Taxachussets there is a move to overturn the judges tyrannical rule of allowing so called gay “marriage” and it will win. America does not want you deviant sexual behavoir legitimized with marriage.. get used to it.

    Comment by moonbat patrol
    ===========================
    If you had lived in other eras,I have no doubt you would have railed against:women getting the vote,individuals of different races dating and marrying,African-Americans being given their freedom,and so on.

    July 6th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
  137. eblair says:

    136 — interesting point Steve. as the dissent observed in today’s decision, overwhelming majorities favored bans on interracial marriage at one time…

    relatedly, the point people miss when they say or suggest everything is put to a vote in our society is that this is not how things work

    we live in a constitutional democracy. That means that constitutional rights are NOT subject to a majority vote. even if a majority wants to get rid of free speech, or freedom of religion, or wants to make Catholicism the official religion of the United States, they can’t do so. They can amend the Constitution, but short of that, a majority may not make decisions that infringe on constitutional rights
    The Supreme Court famouly recognized this, in a case decided more than 60 years ago:

    “he very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, to free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

    so it’s not as simply as saying “if a majority wants something, a majority gets it”

    July 6th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
  138. moonbat patrol says:

    # 136 why are liberals so bigoted and judgemental?? why do you equate sexual depravity with civil rights?? why do you defend sexual deviancy with normalcy? you of course are wrong on your bigoted assumptions, we are not talking about civil rights here , we are talking about a group of mentally disturbed people and their supporters asking for special rights in order to justify their persuits and seek legitimacy. this is not about families or equality this about a group of degenerates trying to force their will on society. It is about bigoted people who have contempt for tradition, heritage, normalcy , religion and plain deceny. it is wrong and will never happen in America get used to it.

    July 6th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
  139. Steve53 says:

    to Moon #19 “In a democratic society people get to vote on what type of society that they will live in.”

    By this argument, we can reinstitute slavery if a majority of Americans want it badly enough. At the same time, lets implement stonings for those children that talk back to their parents, or for those people that cut their hair, or eat shellfish. Hey, if we can convince (bribe, coerce) enough people to vote for it, we can even force everyone to sacrifice a lamb on their front lawns before dinner each night, after all if a majority of Americans vote for it, it must be good for the Nation. Perhaps you don’t know that the Bill of Rights and Constitution are there to protect individual rights as well as to protect the minority from the often times corrupt wishes of the majority! This issue is about equality and “Freedom for all” as Dick Cheney put it. Stop trying to force your dogmatic mythology (ie: “Christian” religion) on the rest of us.

    Comment by Scott
    =========================
    Good post!
    Allow me to summarize:”Think!”

    July 6th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
  140. Steve53 says:

    we live in a constitutional democracy. That means that constitutional rights are NOT subject to a majority vote. even if a majority wants to get rid of free speech, or freedom of religion, or wants to make Catholicism the official religion of the United States, they can’t do so. They can amend the Constitution, but short of that, a majority may not make decisions that infringe on constitutional rights
    The Supreme Court famouly recognized this, in a case decided more than 60 years ago:

    “he very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, to free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

    so it’s not as simply as saying “if a majority wants something, a majority gets it”

    Comment by eblair
    =======================
    Nicely stated,eblair.

    July 6th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
  141. PCon says:

    From Scott, #131: marriage should be for procreation. well then at the same time we must ban infertile, elderly, and those couples that dont want to have kids from getting married.

    WRONG. Infertile, elderly couples, and those that don’t want to have kids would STILL be the type of union that meets all the criteria for childrearing if they changed their minds, accidentally got pregnant and decided to keep the baby, adopted, or became legal guardians to their godchildren or nephews or nieces if those kids’ parents died. As wonderful as many gays can be and indeed are in the raising of children, a same sex couple is simply not the type of institution that can provide a mother and father.

    Get it through your head: this is not about bigotry against a type of person. It’s a statement about a type of INSTITUTION.

    If you don’t care to have children, then what’s your problem? You’ve got MUCH more support if you just argue for the benefits of marriage within a legal institution called a civil union. But marriage means the best institution for the raising of children, and that’s what the majority of the nation want to preserve as a definition.

    And finally, Scotty, it IS about the Constitution. There is NO such thing as a right to marriage in the Constitution. If you want to write it in, get going on proposing a Constitutional amendment. Here’s the point: You have the RIGHT to call yourself a married couple, perform a wedding ceremony, exchange rings and vows, call yourselves husband or wife, and have all your friends and families recognize you as such. THAT is your Constitutionally-protected right, and I GUARANTEE you, no sane person is going to bang down your door to deny you that sacred right. But government, which is a tool of the people, has the right to choose what type of institution (again, this is about the institution, not about the individuals) it will grant benefits to. Let me give you a simple example: You can drive your car in the middle of the barren desert; that is your right. But the moment you take that car onto a federally-regulated road or highway, it is no longer a right; it is a privilege that government can regulate and deny, if you don’t meet certain criteria, like maintaining a valid license and paying your registration.

    Just to illustrate my point, Scotty, please answer this: If marriage were a Constitutionally-protected right, why does a couple have to apply for a marriage LICENSE? There is no need for a license to freedom of speech, the press, religion, assembly, bearing arms, illegal search and seizure, or any other right acribed in the Constitution. A license is needed to apply for a privilege, not a right.

    Right?

    July 6th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
  142. Steve53 says:

    # 136 why are liberals so bigoted and judgemental?? why do you equate sexual depravity with civil rights?? why do you defend sexual deviancy with normalcy? you of course are wrong on your bigoted assumptions, we are not talking about civil rights here , we are talking about a group of mentally disturbed people and their supporters asking for special rights in order to justify their persuits and seek legitimacy. this is not about families or equality this about a group of degenerates trying to force their will on society. It is about bigoted people who have contempt for tradition, heritage, normalcy , religion and plain deceny. it is wrong and will never happen in America get used to it.

    Comment by moonbat patrol —
    ======================
    Where to start?…Forget it.A pointless waste of time.

    July 6th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
  143. Lanky says:

    Some people don’t get it. Marriage is about the dedication of ‘reproductive rights’. When a man and a woman marry it is society’s recognition that their rights to reproduce are dedicated to each other, and interference from outside sources is socially discouraged. It doesn’t mean they have to have children; it means they no longer have to compete for the chance to engage in reproductive acts. If I’m not fighting with some other guy over a woman, we can cooperatively build a society. That’s how civilization got started in the first place!

    Prides of lions have only one adult male. It’s the same with wild herds of horses. Even in wolf packs that have more than one male, only the Alpha male gets to reproduce. Until marriage came about humans were similarly limited to small bands, but marriage changed all that allowing the building of civilizations by stopping the fighting.

    What gays want isn’t marriage, because they aren’t competing for reproductive rights the way heterosexuals do. It isn’t about equality either because gays have exactly the same right to marry that everyone else does. Civil marriage isn’t about sexual orientation because the question doesn’t appear on any marriage license application in any state. Nor is it about experiencing orgasms since they don’t ask that either. Everyone has a right to marry, but if you don’t want to unite with a member of the opposite gender you are refusing to exercise that right, at which point it is no longer anyone else’s problem. There is no requirement to change the institution just because some people choose not to participate.

    Civil unions might be an appropriate solution, but to change one of the foundations of civilization for the flimsy reason that some people don’t want to participate in it the way it is, is a truly stupid idea.

    July 6th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
  144. CpnJustice says:

    Here’s some information for people who were interested in the reasons why many gays and lesbians are trying to legalize same-sex marriage instead of accepting Civil Unions. The core assumption people make is that Civil Unions and Marriage provide identical rights, they do not.

    MarriageEqualityNow.org
    Human Rights Watch article

    July 6th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
  145. PCon says:

    Scotty #131: whether or not same sex marriage is allowed, gays will have and raise children, period. its happening already and it will happen whether or not same sex marriage is approved or denied. (unless of course you want to ban same sex adoptions AND natural child birth via sterilization… How Orwellian!)

    Relax and take a chill pill, Scott. I’m certainly not making the point that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to raise children, in whatever way they become legal guardians to kids. After all, millions of single people are parents, and many of them, probably most, do a wonderful job raising them.

    But I think you’ll agree with most of society in not defining THESE institutions as ideal for childrearing either, wouldn’t you? I can’t imagine anyone supporting the idea of taking children out of same sex couple families, any more than they would support removing kids from single parent households.

    I can’t stress this enough: Forget the Neanderthals for just a moment, OK? For the overwhelming majority of Americans, myself included, our opposition to gay marriage is NOT about bigotry; it’s about a desire to preserve the definition of marriage as the ideal institution for the continuation of society, which is the raising of children.

    Scott: would YOU have grown up exactly the same, no difference whatsoever, if you had two mothers or fathers instead of one mother and one father? Would you really have? If you had no father to teach you that a man is worthy of providing unconditional love balanced with discipline, or no mother to teach you that a woman is worthy of the same?

    And if Uncle Joe or Grandma Jane had to come along a few days a week to provide that opposite sex parental role for you, would your nuclear family as it stood really have been the ideal institution for childrearing?

    That’s all we’re saying pal, nothing more. OK?

    July 6th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
  146. Steve53 says:

    I can’t imagine anyone supporting the idea of taking children out of same sex couple families, any more than they would support removing kids from single parent households.
    ========================
    Clearly,your imagination has failed you.

    July 6th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
  147. moonbat patrol says:

    fisrst you came out of the closet
    then special laws and protections against so called “hate crimes”. a whole new class of specially protected species.
    you had your gay “pride” parades displaying your sick, demented litle hobbies.
    now you want so called gay “marriage” to further legitimize your sad , neurotic, narccassistic deviant lifestyle.
    you have the NEA and major corporations forcing “tolerance seminars” on people.
    In Canada you homos tried to get the Bible labeled “hate speech” because it spoke against gayness.
    what’s next on the degenerates agenda for America?? how about affirimitave action for fags?? how about reparations?? how about polygamy- hey that’s a family too right?? how about beastilaity?? maybe you can marry that oak tree in the backyard you loves so much. where do you degenerates draw the line. I know and America knows that it will not be the end of degenerates “civil rights” struggle. you will not stopuntil you gan have sex with anything anywhere , anytime.
    what’s next legitimizing pedophilia?? hey child molesters have rights too. What’s wrong with sex with a child right?? I mean if you stop child molesters that would be like racism, and anti-miscegnation laws and hitler and the holocaust and on and on and on
    and where does it stop? until you have broken the last taboo, crossed the last boundary? broken the last shred of decency? Until you have called bigot the last person who disagrees with you??????

    July 6th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
  148. Steve53 says:

    That’s all we’re saying pal, nothing more. OK?

    Comment by PCon — July 6, 2006 @ 7:17 pm

    ===============================
    So,you’re the official spokesperson for the “overwelming majority of Americans” regarding homosexual marriage?
    I missed the memo.

    July 6th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
  149. PCon says:

    Steve53, clearly your imagination is getting carried away. I know a same sex couple with a child, very well in fact. It’s not happening and it wouldn’t. Get real. I know many people get psyched up with malignant fantasies about the “tyrannical right wing”, but it’s really time to drop the kool Aid.

    July 6th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
  150. Gregor Samsa says:

    how about polygamy- hey that’s a family too right??
    Comment by moonbat patrol — July 6, 2006 @ 7:30 pm

    I noticed you mentioned the Bible in your post.

    The Bible talks about, and condones, polygamy.

    So, what about polygamy?

    how about beastilaity?? …. you will not stopuntil you gan have sex with anything anywhere , anytime. what’s next legitimizing pedophilia?? …. What’s wrong with sex with a child right??

    Are you acquainted with the term “consent”? Do you know what it means?

    The connections you are establishing make sense only to you.

    where does it stop? until you have broken the last taboo, crossed the last boundary? broken the last shred of decency? Until you have called bigot the last person who disagrees with you??????

    I suggest you take something to calm your fragile psyche, and then a nap. Your hysterics show you are are in dire need of a break.

    July 6th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
  151. Lanky says:

    To 144.

    Marriage didn’t come with the rights and responsibilities it has now. In fact, it preceded those rights and responsibilities by centuries. Every so-called benefit ( I have to laugh at the “tax benefits” claim – somebody obviously knows NOTHING about taxes) was added to marriage after the fact. These same benefits could be added to civil unions in exactly the same way, especially since some of the legal assumptions of marriage are quite inappropriate for a gay union.

    In fact many of the benefits of marriage are simply the assumtion of a right that can just as easily be obtained through the legal system using wills, powers of attorney, etc. What few can’t be obtained that way could be added to civil unions by the stroke of a pen.

    The real problem is that gays want to obscure any perception of difference between themselves and straights. I am black, and I would be doing the same thing if I insisted that you refer to me as white. In fact, I would have to be insisting that you change the definition of “white” as a racial classification to include me even though I’m black. That would be stupid, but to insist on changing the definition of marriage from “the union of a man and a woman” to “the union of two people” is equally stupid. AND unnecessary. There’s a better way that doesn’t involve tampering with the foundations of civilization.

    By the way, does it strike anyone else as bizarre that people are gay and yet parenting children biologically? I would call such a person ‘bisexual’. I have a relative who is a lesbian and a parent through artificial insemination, and I have no problem with gay adoption because I think two mothers or two fathers is better than none, but this sudden, recent, politically-correct benefit of being gay is being abused in my view.

    If the truly gay can father children the natural way, it’s a choice. Plain and simple.

    July 6th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
  152. PCon says:

    Lanky #151. Right on. Great attitude…

    July 6th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
  153. Lanky says:

    PCon 152 – Thanks. Wish I could stay part of this exchange longer but I have to go. Have a great evening!

    L.

    July 6th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
  154. PCon says:

    Me too, I’m beat. Take care. Great exchange with all the rest of ya too!

    July 6th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
  155. Steve53 says:

    Steve53, clearly your imagination is getting carried away. I know a same sex couple with a child, very well in fact. It’s not happening and it wouldn’t. Get real. I know many people get psyched up with malignant fantasies about the “tyrannical right wing”, but it’s really time to drop the kool Aid.

    Comment by PCon
    ==========================
    PCon,Your comment was that you could not imagine individuals supporting the idea of removing children from same-sex households.
    I have heard from more than one conservative commenter that children should be removed from those households.And so,as I said,your imagination has failed you.
    I suggest you pay attention to highlighted quotes,and the response.
    Nice rant,though.

    July 6th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
  156. moonbat patrol says:

    good job lanky! do you equate gay rights with the civil rights movement?

    July 6th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
  157. 3rdman says:

    Why are the conservatives defending the government’s intrusion into a religious matter anyway? What happened to being for smaller government? Shouldn’t churches decide whether they want gay marriage or not?

    And to #73, I don’t have a basement and I don’t know what these “wors” are you speak of.

    July 6th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
  158. 3rdman says:

    “and yes you can choose not to be queer if you so choose.” (in comment 138)

    …Homosexuality is biological, all of the current research points to that.

    From a site that is strongly against gay marriage:
    (AgapePress) – Dr. Robert Scheidt, a spokesman for the Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA), says he does not dismiss recent scientific research which claims to have found support for the theory that the younger brothers of male children are more likely to be homosexual due to biological factors in effect during the mother’s pregnancy.
    http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/7/62006f.asp

    Telling people its a choice is about as stupid as telling people their skin color or gender is a choice, retard.

    July 6th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
  159. moonbat patrol says:

    OK # 158 do kids with downs syndrome or epilepsy have a choice either?Homosexuality used to be on the list of mental disorders until the homosexual activists pressured the APA to delist it. The US military still lists it as a mental disorder. From the parameters you stated about homosexuality it should be treated for what it is a mental disorder brought about by biological factors. it should be treated not encouraged,…leftard

    homosexuality is a mental issue not a civil rights issue.

    July 6th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
  160. 3rdman says:

    Just to let you know, people with down’s syndrome can get married…so by your logic gay people should as well. Sucks to beat yourself in an argument, doesn’t it?

    And gay marriage was removed from the DSM-IV and psychology in general as a mental disorder because it doesn’t cause functional impairment. Have you ever taken even a basic abnormal psyc class?

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
  161. kimmy says:

    In a marriage there are several thins expected.
    Security, respect, love, acceptance of each other, understanding and a mutual acceptance of each views.
    What has this to do with the sexual orientation of the couple?
    If everything is met, who cares other than the religious right?
    Stay out of peoples bedromms!

    July 6th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
  162. Gregor Samsa says:

    Just to let you know, people with down’s syndrome can get married…
    Comment by 3rdman — July 6, 2006 @ 11:33 pm

    So can people who suffer from epilepsy.

    My two cents…

    July 7th, 2006 at 12:30 am
  163. Lora says:

    how about polygamy- hey that’s a family too right??
    comment by moonbat

    If you pay attention at all to the news, polygamy, though technically illegal, is very much tolerated in Utah, perhaps the reddest state of all. If you haven’t heard of him, look up Warren Jeffs, the head of a polygamist cult, who is now on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List and whose followers still provide him with shelter and lots of $$.

    July 7th, 2006 at 1:45 am
  164. Lora says:

    Liberals and progressives are voting to steal fathers and mothers from future children.
    cooment by Davey

    To Davey,
    Leaving all the other pros and cons in regard to sam-sex marriage aside, your argument that such marriages steal fathers and mothers from future children–or any children– holds no water. One can’t exactly make a gay man or woman with absolutely no attraction to the opposite sex have sexual relations that would result in a child^–unless by rape or artificial insemination.
    As for children already here on Earth, thousands–maybe more–are abandoned by one or more parent every year. There are also parents, who, to spite their former spouse/partner, run off with the child(ren) and never let them see him/her. What about the rights of those children to a mother or father?

    July 7th, 2006 at 2:52 am
  165. Jay Randal says:

    Interesting thread posts everyone except moonbat who needs to be put into an institution of some kind > lol.

    July 7th, 2006 at 3:45 am
  166. Right says:

    To avoid “polygamy” and “bestiality” and “pedophilia” as becoming legitimate marriages (or civil unions, which would be my preferred term for all state recognized romantic partnerships), simply define civil union as “the romantic partnership between two consenting adult humans” and be done with it. That significantly limits it to two and only two people, humans and humans only, and adults and adults only. Problem solved. Then take the word marriage out of every legal and governmental document and replace it with “civil union” or “domestic partnership” I don’t care which. Replace “husband” or “wife” with “spouse”.

    I’m a conservative for sure, but I see nothing wrong with homosexuality or gay “marriage.” I just think the term “marriage” needs to go back to its roots in religion, and leave the government sanctioned and recognized partnerships out of the religion question.

    July 7th, 2006 at 8:19 am
  167. moonbat patrol says:

    #165 glad to see you are continuing your attacks on me. How dare I differ from your line of propoganda right?? You are an idiot and now the world knows.
    #160 so because you heard this theory from some second rate liberal prof and some third rate liberal arts school you believe it verbatim?? I don’t. Do some research and educate yourself on the real reasons that homosexuality was de-listed by the APA.
    Too bad that the folks here, even the self avowed conservative are out of touch with mainstream America. We do not want nor will we ever acept your so called gay”marriage” . if you cannot even get some judge in ultra liberal NY nevermind Georgia to bow to your sick demands how well do you thing you are going to do elsewhere. But please keep up your fight because as we have seen the two things that help true conservatives get elected is the far lefts efforts to restrict the second ammendment rights while legalising and legitimizing the rights of sexual deviants and degenerates. good luck, you’ll need it!

    July 7th, 2006 at 8:58 am
  168. 3rdman says:

    #167, Yes, the University of South Carolina is *definitely* a third rate liberal arts school and its *definitely* super liberal, lol.

    And you avoided the part about me pointing out that people with down’s syndrome and epilepsy can get married. You just admitted gay marriage is okay in post 158 by that logic.

    Changing the topic with ad-hominem attacks is just so cool, eh? You conservatives never can answer the tough questions. (And no one here has even mentioned the second amendment you stupid moron, so why are you bringing it up?)

    July 7th, 2006 at 9:32 am
  169. MNW says:

    “stupid moron”

    A very accurate description of Mr. Patrolman…and even stupid morons can legally marry.

    July 7th, 2006 at 9:52 am
  170. MNW says:

    Fags still cannot marry and never will.

    I am already married…and in due time my marriage will be legally recognized.

    I have patience…and I know that in the end, liberty and justice will prevail against prejudice and hate.

    Your antiquated and ignorant ideas about “fags” will soon enough be brushed aside as truth and reality become more evident.

    We will prevail, and you and the rest of your ilk will be tossed to the trash heap of foolishness like the rest of your kin.

    July 7th, 2006 at 10:28 am
  171. moonbat patrol says:

    #171 dream on . we will relegate sexual deviants back to either mental therapy or the closet where they belong. We want to be free of your perverse perverted lifestyle in this country and as voters, judges, legislatures and other right minded people come together we will stop the homosexual menace .
    you must live in Taxachussetes which is the only ultra liberal state to legalize so called gay “marriage . other than that you are not married no matter how loud you whine.
    You homos have no right to change society to suit your sexual preference . You know damn well that your quest for marriage is nothing other than an effort for acceptance and legitimization which you will never get.
    we will prevail and relegate you and your ilk to the trash heap of sexual deviants where you belong.

    July 7th, 2006 at 10:51 am
  172. Right says:

    Moonbat is not a conservative. Moonbat is a bigoted fascist. It’s obvious moonbat doesn’t have any friends outside his “comfort” zone, which would include any non-white, non-Christian, or non-heterosexual.

    Your use of derogatives and perjoratives underline your basic inability to reason.

    Next time you attack someone by questioning their true motives, maybe you need to step away from the Kool-Aid. Jonestown wasn’t built by Jim Jones alone, you know.

    July 7th, 2006 at 11:37 am
  173. MNW says:

    You know damn well that your quest for marriage is nothing other than an effort for acceptance and legitimization which you will never get.

    I couldn’t care less about your. or anyone elses, acceptance. YOU are not that important.

    I will, however, demand that MY government, OUR government, respect my marriage with the same legal protections, legal benefits, legal responsibilities, and legal rights that everyone elses marriage is afforded. My marriage deserves nothing less that everyone elses.

    July 7th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
  174. Steve53 says:

    You know damn well that your quest for marriage is nothing other than an effort for acceptance and legitimization which you will never get.

    I couldn’t care less about your. or anyone elses, acceptance. YOU are not that important.

    I will, however, demand that MY government, OUR government, respect my marriage with the same legal protections, legal benefits, legal responsibilities, and legal rights that everyone elses marriage is afforded. My marriage deserves nothing less that everyone elses.

    Comment by MNW
    ==================
    This SHOULD be the last word on the subject.

    July 7th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
  175. PCon says:

    173. Moonbat is not a conservative. — by “Right”

    “Right” is absolutely RIGHT. Moonbat Patrol is DEFNITELY not a conservative. I want to stress this because I know all the lefties reading his rants are foaming at the mouth with the ammo he’s giving them, reinforcing their misguided views that conservatives are, by definition, homophobic bigots, along with being racists, sexists, classists (discriminating along socioeconomic lines), etc. etc.

    Moonbat’s got his own issues, and they’re none of my business. But he and I are a million miles apart from each other in the way we think, as evidenced by all his posts. A true Reagan conservative cares about equal opportunity and justice for every human being, contrary to what the Left thinks. We differ from the Left because we don’t assume wealthy and powerful people automatically oppress the weak and the poor, and we actually look for evidence of this on a case-by-case basis before we scream “oppression!”.

    Also, we believe in turning to the power–and commensurate responsibility–of the individual, the family and the community before turning to government to solve our problems. Yes, government should step in to help in dire situations, but we believe it should be a last resort after the more local solutions have been exhausted. This reduces dependency and makes for stronger individuals, familes, and communities. THAT’S the real reason why conservatives care about morality.

    Moreover, true conservatives believe in preserving the Constitution and not letting it get reinterpreted at the whim of activist judges. If you want to change the laws to fit your views, work at the grassroots level to change public opinion and get laws revised, and Constitutional amendments passed. Let the people have the debate in the court of public opinion, which is the American way, but don’t let a majority of judges, who are unelected and unaccountable to the people, hijack the will of the people. Once you shake up our government’s separation of powers and open that Pandora’s Box, you’ll be the first to cry foul if a judge you don’t like tramples on a law that’s important to YOU. That issue is vitally dear to the conservative mindset.

    It’s sickening when the Left lies and tries to paint us as uncaring, intolerant bigots who only care about the rich. But when you’re devoid of real ideas and solutions, name-calling is the only tactic that can win elections and fundraising.

    So don’t look to Moonbat as an example of a true conservative. Based on all his posts, he is DEFINITELY not one of us.

    July 7th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
  176. moonbat patrol says:

    Bigot: anybody who disagrees with a liberal

    homophobic bigot: anybody who has the sense to know that homosexuality is a mental disorder and does not believe in the idea of re-defining the family or marriage to suit a bunch of degenerates in their pathetic effort to seek legitimacy.

    whine,snivel, stamp your feet,etc. but America rejects the silly notion of so called gay “marriage”.

    homosexuals don’t need marriage they need therapy for their sickness.
    to all the gays out there you can be normal and you can get help for your sickness.

    July 7th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
  177. Pinky says:

    moonbat patrol: a/k/a chris, reddog, and whatever other names you post under, you are the one who needs serious therapy.

    July 7th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
  178. moonbat patrol says:

    sure #178 just keep telling yourself that and maybe someday you too will believe it. If you used your mind and comon sense you would know that I am right and this whole homosexuality thing is WRONG and shoud not be ecouraged and legitimized . we were not put here to be queer.

    July 7th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
  179. eblair says:

    PCon–appreciate your comments about the mindless, ugly ranting on this thread

    wanted to respond to this point if you’re still around “true conservatives believe in preserving the Constitution and not letting it get reinterpreted at the whim of activist judges”

    This is just a slogan. the term “activist judge” has very little meaning–it’s just a slogan used to attack judges who make decisions that one disagrees with. Judging constitutional issues is much more complicated than this slogan assumes–it’s not just a matter of locating the correct constitutional provision. Judges have to decide what generalized principles like “due process”, “equal protection” and “cruel and unusual punishment” mean. The Constitution doesn’t spell these and other terms out, nor does it tell judges how to apply them to different facts, including modern issues the framers could not have imagined (e.g. regulating the internet).

    Judges–all judges–develop judge made rules to help resolve constitutional problems e.g the idea of different levels of scrutiny (strict, intermediate, rational basis), incorporation of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment.

    There are plenty of examples of conservative “activism”. Conservative judges decided that “persons” under the 14th Amendment meant “corporations” too, and gave corporations rights to free speech and equal protection that are still recognized today. Conservative judges decided that money counts as “speech” protected by the First Amendment–that is every bit a concept developed out of thin air as the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade. Scalia has developed some very creative ways to define “property” under the due process clause.

    Liberals (and the media ) have done a terrible rhetorical job, utterly failing to point out the flaws in the critique of supposedly (and always liberal) activist judges. But that doesn’t mean this slogan has real merit.

    July 8th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
  180. moonbat patrol says:

    despite anything you say it is Adam and Eve not adam and steve and it will saty that way. there will be no gay marriage no matter what you say.

    July 8th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
  181. eblair says:

    gay and lesbian people can get married in Massachusetts, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, and South Africa

    civil unions are available in more than 10 other countries, plus Vermont and Connecticut

    50 years ago, it was illegal for black people to marry white people in many parts of the US

    we’ll see what happens…but it is not accurate to say there will be no gay marriage. There already is.

    July 8th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
  182. PCon says:

    Eblair re: #180 –

    Those are good points and they deserve to be looked into. But you’ll have to admit one of the most egregious forms of judicial activism just took place last summer, and lo and behold, the 5 most “liberal” Supreme Court justices backed it, while the 4 most “conservative” justices balked, with the “swing vote” of Sandra Day O’Connor giving a scathing written dissent.

    The case of course was “Kelo vs. New London”, which perverted the Constitution by interpreting the 5th Amendment to mean property which is transferred from one private owner to another counts as “public use” in eminent domain. The concept that an increased tax base due to the higher use created by the new owner counts as “public use” is stretching the term beyond all imagination.

    Also, it’s interesting to note how many liberal legal scholars now admit that the infamous Roe vs. Wade case does not hold legal merit. The widely-touted “right to privacy” cited by Roe is nowhere mentioned or alluded to in the 14th Amendment or elsewhere in the Constitution, and the justices admitted that the only way their “penumbra” of rights could include privacy was if the Constitution evolves so that the Court would be free to consider current public opinion when deciding whether a right was sufficiently “fundamental” to deserve constitutional protection.

    It’s just painfully obvious that Justice Harry Blackmun and his 6 cohorts had an agenda in mind–getting abortion legal–and looked for the “deus ex machina” in the law that could somehow help them legitimize it. Wouldn’t you agree?

    July 9th, 2006 at 3:17 am
  183. Lora says:

    50 years ago, it was illegal for black people to marry white people in many parts of the US

    we’ll see what happens…but it is not accurate to say there will be no gay marriage. There already is.

    Comment by eblair

    It wasn’t just illegal for white people to marry blacks; they also couldn’t marry Asians in many states, too, although I gather cases of blacks marrying Asians or American Indians were generally overlooked. My own marriage (me, Caucasian, to an Asian) would have been illegal in several states four or five decades ago.
    And to moonbat, I would like to point out that as much as he thinks that it’s only the Democrats or liberals who have gays, this is really not a right vs. left issue. Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter; RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman is said to frequent gay clubs in the Washington area. And the long-time director of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover was not only gay but also liked to dress in women’s clothing in private. Moreover, someone in the White House must like gays, or else how do you explain how a homosexual prostitute, Jeff Gannon/James Guckert, acquired a press pass under a phony name, even though he was rejected by the Press Club of GOP-controlled Congress, and also was admitted into the WH, according to Secret Service logs, several times even when there were no press conferences by the president, all the while he was still advertising his “services” on the Internet for $200/hour and $1,200 for a weekend? If you don’t believe this, just google Jeff Gannon or James Guckert.

    July 9th, 2006 at 6:15 am
  184. Lora says:

    Pcon,
    Although I consider myself a liberal, I don’t agree with the Supreme Court decision you cited in #183. However, you might be interested in the following abuse of eminent domain by a very well-known conservative. From the “Texas Observer,”

    “In early January, Bush and his baseball partners hit a home run, selling the Texas Rangers to Thomas Hicks for $250 million. Bush himself hit a grand slam. For his 1.8 percent share of the club — which cost him $605,000 — the Governor gets paid between $10 and $14 million. That is a return of up to twenty-three times his original investment — in less than nine years. But even though Bush and his cohorts are making nearly three times what they paid for the club in 1989, they haven’t paid $7.5 million they owe the city of Arlington.

    The Rangers owners owe the money because of a court judgment against the
    Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority (ASFDA), which was set up by the city to condemn land for, and administer, the Ballpark at Arlington project. In May of 1996, a Tarrant County jury found the ASFDA had not paid a fair price for thirteen acres of land it condemned, and awarded the sellers (the Mathes family) more than six times what the city had agreed to pay. A year after the jury’s decision, the city decided not to appeal and paid the plaintiffs $7.5 million. That’s where the Rangers’ obligation arises.

    In 1990 the Rangers agreed to pay any costs that exceeded $135 million on the Ballpark project. Under those terms, the city’s position is that the $7.5-million judgment should be paid by Bush and the Rangers. Two days after Hicks purchased the Rangers, Arlington city attorney Jay Doegey told this reporter, “We have a

    contract with them that says they will pay anything over $135 million. The costs in the condemnation case are over that amount.” But Doegey has not demanded payment; it appears that Arlington city officials don’t want to irritate the owners of the Rangers.

    Tom Schieffer, who was a general partner and president of the Rangers, said, “It’s not our debt. That’s the position we have taken. And that’s consistent with what the master agreement says.” But now that Schieffer and Bush are cashing in their chips, wouldn’t making good on their $7.5-million debt be a nice gesture to the city? “I’m sure we will work out something,” said Schieffer.

    “I think when it is all said and done, I will have made more money than I ever dreamed I would make,” Bush told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. And he’s making millions because the Ballpark at Arlington is a gigantic, taxpayer-supported, cash machine. Last year, Financial World magazine named the Ballpark the most profitable venue in baseball. Hicks didn’t buy the Rangers because he wants Juan González’s autograph. He bought them because he can make a lot of money at the stadium that George W. Bush takes credit for building.

    In 1993, while walking through the stadium, Bush told the Houston Chronicle, “When all those people in Austin say, ‘He ain’t never done anything,’ well, this is it.” But Bush would have never gotten the stadium deal off the ground if the city of Arlington had not agreed to use its power of eminent domain to seize the property that belonged to the Mathes family. And evidence presented in the Mathes lawsuit suggests that the Rangers’ owners –

    remember that Bush was the managing general partner — were conspiring to use the city’s condemnation powers to obtain the thirteen-acre tract a full six months before the ASFDA was even created.

    In an October 26, 1990, memo from Mike Reilly (an Arlington real estate broker and part owner of the Rangers), to Tom Schieffer, Reilly says of the Mathes property, “… in this particular situation our first offer should be our final offer…. If this fails, we will probably have to initiate condemnation proceedings after the bond election passes.”

    The Mathes memo reveals a sharp contrast between Bush’s public pronouncements in defense of property rights and his private profiteering. While running against Ann Richards, Bush said, “I understand full well the value of private property and its importance not only in our state but in capitalism in general, and I will do everything I can to defend the power of private property and private property rights when I am the governor of this state.”

    Yet Bush and his partners used Arlington’s powers to condemn the land for the stadium, and relied on taxpayers to repay the bonds sold to build the Ballpark — receiving what amounts to a direct $135-million subsidy. Now, after tripling the amount they paid for the Rangers, Bush and his partners won’t re-pay the city a measly $7.5 million.”

    This is the deal that made George W. Bush a millionaire in his own right. His partner, Thomas Schieffer, later served as Bush’s ambassador to Australia and is currently the US Ambassador in Japan.

    July 9th, 2006 at 6:24 am
  185. PCon says:

    Lora,
    Good comments. First of all, as a Reagan conservative, I’m glad that there is evidence of sympathy toward homosexuals, and the inclusion of homosexuals like Mary Cheney, in the upper reaches of the Republican Party. It’s just more evidence that contrary to what the Left thinks, we’re actually a tolerant, big tent party. For example, one of the most popular presidential candidates for ‘08–as voted by Republicans–is Rudy Giuliani, who’s openly tolerant of gay rights and abortion rights, while Democrats didn’t allow a single pro-lifer to address their ‘04 convention. And today, Senator Joe Lieberman faces a possible defeat in his reelection bid solely because he dares to not toe the party line on the Iraq War. So I’m proud to be part of the more open-minded, self-secure party. And to the degree that the idea of gays in the Republican Party leadership has any significance, as you allude that it does, it goes to show that the gay marriage debate is not about homophobia or a belief that gays are second-class citizens. So I welcome your comments.

    As far as the interesting case that you pasted, it seems that Bush and Scheiffer failed to pay a $7.5 million bill they owed the city of Arlington after using the city’s eminent domain powers to allow for the building of a ballpark. If they are truly guilty or liable, they should be held to account and forced to pay the bill plus any and all fines and penalties. I don’t make excuses for anyone just because they’re “on my team”, and no one is above the law. But as to the larger issue, it’s heartening that you saw the wrongheaded decision of the liberal judges on the Kelo case. Particularly because you’re a self-described liberal, I hope you can see the horrible effects that can take place when judges decide to take the law into their own hands and start with a desired outcome first and then search for a way to legitimize that outcome, as the justices did with Roe. This is exactly what the newest justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, articulated as a temptation judges face, and they promised they would not succumb to it. Most importantly, their records as longtime judges demonstrate their commitment to resist that urge. I wish I could say the same for the more liberal justices on the Supreme Court.

    Liberals would be the first to cry foul if a judge they didn’t like twisted a law that was near and dear to them.

    July 9th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
  186. Lora says:

    PCon,
    I am glad to know that there are still tolerant people like you in the GOP. But to say that yours is the more open-minded, self-secure party, just because pro-gay rights, pro-choice Rudy Guiliani spoke at the 2004 Republican convention is an argument that doesn’t hold much water. The convention was held in Guiliani’s city, New York, and his speech did not cover gay rights and abortion but mostly praised George Bush and his party for their position on terrorism. Moreover, it was GOP Senators like Majority leader Bill Frist who thought the marriage amendment was a more important issue than matters like port security, etc. Also, in the Supreme Court case that effectively overthrew Texas’ anti-sodomy laws, it was the very conservative Justices Scalia, Reinquist and Thomas who took the minority position, while the liberal to centrist justices ruled on the majority side.
    Finally, while we both agree that homosexuality is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, I seriously doubt that there are any trolls like Moonbat here claiming to be liberal/progressive who post a lot of homophobic rants on conservative websites. If you find any, please let us know.

    July 9th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
  187. eblair says:

    183 PCon–as I said, “activism” happens on both sides–whether it is Roe v. wade or Buckley v. Valeo (money as speech). haven’t read the Kelo case…

    My point is that this is not the exclusive domain of the left. I do agree that Roe v. wade is a hard decision to defend. So is the concept that corporations are “people” under the 14th Amendment.

    the idea that judges on the right are just applying the law while those on the left are legislating from the bench is just not correct

    what to do about decisions like Roe, Buckley–not sure. I think it’s the price of having human beings as judges–judges on both the right and the left are motivated by subjective feelings and their own ideas of how they’d like to see a case decided. Bush v. Gore (as someone else noted) is a prime example.

    what bugs me is the incorrect idea that only liberals are doing this

    July 9th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
  188. eblair says:

    Pcon–really doesn’t pass the straight face to call the Republican party the more open minded and tolerant! I am glad you feel this way, but your party’s leadership does not.

    look at the current leadership. The President, majority leader of Senate, and nearly every single Republican Senator supported the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage in every state (dismissing the concept of states’ rights as well). that’s tolerant? Repubs are forcing a vote on this issue in the House even though they already lost in the Senate and the amendment can’t pass.

    more examples:
    Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK wants the death penalty for anyone who performs an abortion. He also called the “gay agenda” the greatest threat to freedom today (this was in 2003, after the terrorists attack which others might reasonably see as a bigger threat) http://atheism.about.com/b/a/104757.htm

    Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) compared homosexuality to alcoholism and kleptomania and concluded it (homosexuality) is “a sin” (former Repub House majority leader Dick Armey agreed, as did Sen. Nickles, R-OK)

    Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) who compared homosexuality to bestiality.

    those who criticize what has happened in Iraq are derided as traitors (one Rep congresswoman said this about Rep. Murtha on the floor of the Congress–there are many other examples). Saxby Chambliss’s (R-GA) campaign ad in 2002 morphed triple amputee Vietnam Vet Max Cleland (D-GA)’s face into Bin Laden’s.

    advocates of “Dominionism”, the idea that the US is a Christian nation and therefore Christians have a god-given right to control political, social, and cultural institutions have found a home in the Republican party. (Sen. Brownback, R-KS is one powerful ally) see http://www.jewsonfirst.org/dominionism.html

    then there are radical, wildly intolerant unelected rightwingers who speak to many on the right from perches in the media–Ann Coulter (who mocked 9/11 widows) Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage.

    and people like Pat Robertson (who ran for Prez in 88 as an R and did pretty well in primaries), Jerry Falwell (who blamed 9/11 on “pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians” who incurred god’s wrath. Robertson made a similar statement–Falwell later apologized–sort of), Phyllis Schlafly, James Dobson, Alan Keyes who make venomous statements that no one could reasonably call “tolerant”

    right wing groups like Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and Concerned Women for America, who work closely with Repubs in Congress and the White House and spout hate and intolerance

    I’ll stop now…

    July 9th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
  189. eblair says:

    Pcon–by the way, Kelo was not just decided by “liberal” justices. Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, voted with the majority. He is in the middle of this very conservative court but cannot fairly be called a liberal. On other courts (e.g. the Warren court), it is likely none of the current justices, only 2 of whom were appointed by a Dem, would be seen as liberals

    July 9th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
  190. Lora says:

    eblair,
    Thanks for the link to the article on Brownback. I knew his record to a certain degree , but the “Rolling Stone” article has convinced me that he is a leader of the Christian Taliban–and, thus, very frightening indeed.

    July 10th, 2006 at 12:34 am
  191. PCon says:

    Jeez, you guys! I guess I became the most popular guy on this thread all of a sudden. Really flattered and all, but seriously, I’m really glad a lot of obvious liberals here are open minded and giving a lot of reasoned debate. OK, let me try to address just a few of these items…

    Eblair, the cases you cited are interesting and need a closer look. But as I said in #186, most true conservatives are stressing the importance of judges not having a pre-defined agenda and searching for the “deus ex machina” in the law to somehow legitimize their agenda. I’m VERY glad you see how much of a stretch it was for the Court to come up with the Roe decision. I guess all I can say is that we’ve got to look for activism on both sides, when a conservative judge does it as well as a liberal. But I’m heartened that it’s the Republicans who are nominating and confirming judges who have track records of refraining from activism far more than liberals. It was sheer brilliance and simplicity when John Roberts stated in his confirmation hearings that a judge is supposed to only call balls and strikes and NOT favor any team. The job of a judge is only that simple. Then you had Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Dianne Feinstein, who had the audacity to publicly state that you’ve got to EXPECT judicial activism because judges are only human, so in effect you’ve got to hope you get the judges that will push YOUR agenda. I mean, that’s NUTS. As much as judges ARE indeed human and will always have an agenda, they’ve got to leave that agenda at the door and ONLY look at the law. THIS is what the Framers meant when they stated that justice is blind. The Courts are supposed to be the only apolitical branch of government, the last refuge where a person can turn for true justice. If we turn it into just another political organ as Feinstein suggested, made up of politicans in robes, with incredible power that upsets the other two branches of government because they’re unelected and we’re unable to hold them accountable, then all hope is lost. Look, I’m not naive. Activism from conservative judges? I’m sure it does exist, and seriously, it’s worth looking into the cases you cite. I’m against that as much as when it comes from a liberal. But you’ve got to admit, the Roberts and Alito hearings were tremendously instructive as to the difference between the parties on this issue. And please don’t bring up the intra-party dispute over the miscalculated nomination of Harriet Miers. If Clinton had nominated a judge unpopular with the liberal base (I suppose that would be someone who’s not enough of a liberal activist judge), I believe the party would also have the right to dispute the nominee before going up for confirmation.

    As much as conservative judicial activism probably does take place, just compare the Democrats’ hateful vitriol during the Roberts & Alito hearings to how Republicans helped confirm the far more radical Ginsberg and Breyer with over 90% and 80% approval, respectively. THEN tell me there’s no difference between the two sides.

    ALSO eblair…please, you seem very reasonable but you’re going too far with your condemnation of the religious Right and your link with the mainstream Republican Party. I read your comment about the “Dominionists”, and am noticing that’s the new boogeyman on the lefty blogs, etc. Come on, give it a break. These people do NOT represent the Republican Party, or ESPECIALLY Reagan conservatism, anymore than the ultra-leftist ANSWER and Workers’ World Party nuts represent the mainstream Democratic Party. As much as I despise how the whole Kerry-Kennedy-Reid-Pelosi-Dean-Gore, etc. axis of the Democratic Party leadership has lurched far to the left in the past few years, I won’t compare them to those ultra radical anti-American socialists. But you do sink to that level when you incriminate fundamentalist Christians as the “Christian Taliban”, as Lora sickeningly did.

    Look, here’s a newsflash for all of you, and you can accept it or not. YES, there are extremists here and there, but they’re vastly in the minority in the Republican Party leadership. You all saw how most of them condemned the idiotic statements made by Robertson and Falwell that 9/11 was somewhat deserved, or that Ariel Sharon brought his stroke upon himself for appeasing the Palestinians. How often do nutjobs on the Left get criticized by the Democratic Party leadership? Where was leftwing extremist Michael Moore during the ‘04 Democratic convention? Right there in Jimmy Carter’s private press box, chumming with a former President. It’s YOU guys who are more extremist; not us. Your party rejects people who dare not toe the party line (how’s Lieberman doing against Ned Lamont in CT? And what other issues is Lamont bringing up other than Lieberman’s support of the Iraq War and the War on Terror in general?).

    The Christian Taliban, the American Taliban? I don’t agree with evangelical or fundamentalist Christians on every issue, but I do know this: With some exceptions, the overwhelming majority of them do NOT want to impose a Christian theocracy, nor turn every person into a Christ-believer. YES, it’s part of their mission to evangelize, but the vast majority of Christian denominations have rejected the concept of supersessionism, which is the idea that Christianity has replaced God’s covenant with the Jewish people. And for Catholics, it’s been over 40 years that the Vatican officially accepted all religions that lead to God and universal morality.

    HERE’S THE DEAL: As I said in #176, the real reason why conservatives care about morality is because more moral people, lead to more moral families and communities, which leads to stronger societies that can rely more on each other instead of the faceless bureaucracy of government to solve their problems. Faith in a universal God who commands that universal morality is a good start, and organized religion gives people a sense of community with like-minded people who share these values. Yes, there will always be some extremists who think you must believe what they believe and act like they act, or at least like how they preach. But the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians accept that not all people accept Christ or even God. It’s a universal code of ethics that is most important, and it just so happens that faith in a universal God helps support a universal morality. As our Founding Fathers enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. our rights come from a universal God. because if they were granted by man, they could just as easily be taken away by man.

    There will always be some right wing extremists, but personally I think they’re vastly outnumbered by the highly organized, far left radicals. So get a grip you guys, with all the American Taliban and Christian Taliban crap. Seriously.

    July 10th, 2006 at 4:12 am
  192. Lora says:

    PCon
    Did you read the article on Brownback? He is for keeping women at home, doing away with the Constitution and replacing it with religious law. I am sorry if such a comparison to the Taliban sickens you, but the idea of trying to make all Americans conform to religious law and keeping women at home (like the Taliban, I’m afriad) sickens me.

    July 10th, 2006 at 8:05 am
  193. eblair says:

    PCon–I will write morem later. for now:

    Brownback, Coburn, Frist, Lott, Delay, and James Inhofe (not discused earlier) are not fringe figures–they are US Senators at the heart of the Republican party. Christian dominionism is indeed scary–but it has support from leaders within the Repub party, including Brownback

    Ginsburg and Breyer are not more radical than Alito and Roberts. Part of the reason their noms sailed thru is that Sen. Orrin Hatch recomnended their nominations when Clinton asked him for suggestions. That would be like Bush taking recommendations from Ted Kennedy

    telling us to ” get a grip” when we provide specific examples of what we mean by extremism within the R party is not very effective. When you mention this alleged far left element you give no examples that I saw–let alone any among actual Dem leaders

    if I had time, I could give you far more, but I think what has been written already about extremism at the heart of the R party is detailed and specific. If you don’t want to acknowledge what Frist, Brownback, Coburn, Lott Inhofe, and other within the party stand for, that is up to you. But you can’t pass off these Senators (including the leader of the Rs in the Senate) as a fringe element

    July 10th, 2006 at 8:27 am
  194. eblair says:

    sorry, DeLay not Senator of course–inadvertent mistake

    July 10th, 2006 at 8:34 am
  195. MNW says:

    Your party rejects people who dare not toe the party line (how’s Lieberman doing against Ned Lamont in CT?

    I live in Connecticut and I will be voting for Ned Lamont in the August 8 primary.

    My vote for Ned Lamont has nothing to do with “toeing the party line”, nor does it have to solely do with Iraq.

    I will be voting for Ned Lamont because Ned Lamont better represents ME. Lieberman represents someone else.

    July 10th, 2006 at 9:20 am
  196. eblair says:

    Pcon–just to note “As our Founding Fathers enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. our rights come from a universal God. because if they were granted by man, they could just as easily be taken away by man.”

    the Declaration does refer to a Creator. The Constitution does not–in fact, the Const contains no references to god. Just think this is worth mentioning–the founders were a very different sort than today’s Christians, especially today’s Christian right. not sure if you were suggesting otherwise, but since many draw a connection between today’s Christian right and the nation’s founders, I wanted to point this out

    July 10th, 2006 at 11:37 am
  197. eblair says:

    Pcon — who exactly are these “highly organized, far left radicals” you refer to, without specifying? what makes them highly organized and radical?

    I really don’t think there is an analogue on the left to Santorum, Coburn, Inhofe, Brownback, Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council. ACLU and PFAW don’t make it…

    July 10th, 2006 at 11:39 am
  198. moonbat patrol says:

    news flash for all you homophiles and so called gay “marriage” supporters. the Massachussets legislature just Ok’ed the referendum on banning so called gay “marriage” there. There is hope that the people of the state will speak to end the tyranny imposed on them by the court. There is hope that we will turn the tide of this disgusting and wrong minded movement to re-define marriage!!! If you homophiles lose in Mass you can kiss your hopes of legitimizing seual deviants getting “married” everywhere!

    July 10th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
  199. eblair says:

    the legislature didn’t ok this–the Mass SJC did (the same judges who ruled that the constitution requires same sex marriage) I guess they had their non-activist hats on today…

    what they ok’ed is an initiative petition to amend the Mass Const and ban marriage by same sex couples. Next stop for the petition is the legislature. Earliest this gets before the voters is 2008

    July 10th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
  200. MNW says:

    the Massachussets legislature just Ok’ed the referendum on banning so called gay “marriage” there.

    WRONG!

    The “activist” judges of the Mass SJC ruled that the referundum could be put on the ballot if passed by the legislature in two consectutive legislative sessions (which is the Mass constitutional procedure for ballot initiatives).

    Why are’nt any of you hypocrites screaming “activist judges, activist judges” now?

    July 10th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
  201. eblair says:

    MNW–to be fair, if you buy into the “activist judge” framework, it is possible to explain today’s decision as non-activist because the judges deferred to another branch of govt

    my point (not to speak for you) was that this exposes some of the problems with the framework. If liberal activist judges (and 6 of the 7 judges who decided the MA marriage case were appointed by Republicans) were hell-bent on imposing their will, they would have decided today’s case differently–they would have said that the proposed initiative is improper.

    it is hard to understand why, if allegedly “liberal activist” judges were all about their agenda, only some of their decisions could be characterized as “activist”

    I think the “activist” slogan is very cynical. Judges are human beings, and subjective preferences undoubtedly influence their decisions-sometimes (whether they are liberals OR conservatives, or neither). But judging is not simply politics by another name, and most if not all judges recognize this

    July 10th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
  202. PCon says:

    Not ONE of you liberals challenged what I said about the judicial activism that took place with the Roe or Kelo decisions. Nor did you challenge my assertion that the judges likely arrived at decisions on the cases first, based on their political and personal agendas, then found, as I said earlier, the “deus ex machina”, the god in the machine that can save them when logic can’t, as the early Greek playwrights invented, to legitimize their agendas. Nor did you challenge where I cited Roberts and Alito and their long records of not reinterpreting law to fit agendas, and only calling “balls and strikes” instead of “favoring a specific team”. I’m actually very glad you apparently see what is wrong with judges starting with a specific agenda first and trying to justify it later by wrenching interpretations of the law.

    Look, you guys go on and on with descriptions of the more religiously conservative members of the Republican Party. I know some of them have extreme views of what they might prefer, in terms of a more Christian America. But please understand the bigger picture here, as I described earlier. What most of them are really trying to achieve is a more moral America, or more specifically, one that follows a universal code of ethics of justice, personal responsibility and respect for each other’s rights. You and they just disagree on how to achieve that. The majority of Christian fundamentalists disagree with the idea of same sex marriage NOT because of a disdain of the practice or the people, although that certainly motivates some of them.

    For the significant majority however, they truly believe that a child deserves the full experience that ONLY a father and mother can bring. ONLY a man can show a child that men are worthy of providing unconditional love balanced with discipline. ONLY a woman can show a child women are worthy of providing the same. Yes, you can bring the extended family member or close family friend to provide that opposite sex parental role, but isn’t that an admission that your nuclear family as it stands cannot provide a child with the unique values that comes with parental gender balance, and you need outside help?

    OF COURSE no reasonable person would imagine taking a child OUT of a same sex couple family just because it is not the ideal institution for childrearing. You can cite me all the extremists you want who might prefer that, but they would NEVER gain traction in this country, and you KNOW that. But you have to admit, a single parent family ALSO is not the ideal institution for childrearing, and no one is clamoring to remove children from those families either. All society is saying (and remember, it is STILL the majority of society at this time) is that we want the term “marriage” to be reserved for this special institution that can provide a child with the unique values and experiences that can only come with parental gender balance within a HOPEFULLY monogamous, permanently unified couple. As you yourself cited earlier, Eblair, you didn’t think my position was crazy of reserving the term “civil union” for any two people who want their monogamous relationship recognized by law with full benefits that usually go to married couples. And guess WHAT. President Bush himself came out publicly in support of civil unions for gay people in the midst of the ‘04 presidential campaign, when it could have cost him the support of hardcore social conservatives. Will there always be a number of social conservatives who oppose even gay civil unions? Yes, but as polls show, they’re in the minority in this country.

    The same thing with abortion; I can’t think of a single right winger who wants to limit women’s rights and keep them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Please cite to me who these firebreathers are that you’re aware of. Can’t pro choicers just understand that even medical science makes it undeniable that at a certain point in a pregnancy, a fetus is a living human being that can live and function normally outside the womb and is a true human being? Do we not see this virtually everyday with premature babies growing and living normal lives when they were delivered in the 5th or 6th month of pregnancy? And would the deliberate abortion of these babies NOT be an act of murder, for all intents and purposes? Or is just out of sight, out of mind with abortion rights zealots, and the convenience of the mother trumps the right to life? Of course, good people can differ on just WHEN in a pregnancy it become undeniable that this is a human being, and sure, many social conservatives believe it begins at conception. But how can you deny the sickening lies and hypocrisy coming from NARAL, NOW, and the highly organized abortion industry lobbies? Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a crusader for eugenics and strongly advocated that abortion was a necessary way to control the population. How’s THAT for a radical left winger for ya, Lora? Can you blame social conservatives for believing that our society’s moral fabric is under attack when we relegate the worth of a human fetus to nothing more than a decayed tooth that can be extracted as a mere annoyance?

    The radical left wingers are highly organized and out there in full force, Lora and Eblair, and it’s terrifying that you don’t recognize them. Groups like International ANSWER, the Worker’s World Party, which I mentioned previously and I guess you chose to ignore, Code Pink, NARAL, NOW, the ACLU, the deep pockets of George Soros, and many, many other groups, both domestic and international, are highly motivated and well funded, and are on truly on a crusade to redefine America as we know it. They want to minimize the constructs of capitalism, create a larger, more bureaucratic and intrusive, one-world government and spread socialism, limit constitutional rights like the 2nd Amendment, and reduce the acknowledgement of our Judeo Christian tradition by calling it oppressive of those who don’t adhere to them. You agreed that the Declaration of Independence refers to the Creator, Eblair, and as I said, it was only to assure that our rights and liberties are universal and absolute because they didn’t come from man, who could also choose to take them away. OF COURSE the Constitution is purely secular, but without the universal Creator being the provider of the universal code of ethics of respecting each other’s rights, those sacred rights that you ALSO hold dear would be acknowledged as tenuous and fragile. And they are indeed fragile, because we must often fight and die to defend them from those who scoff at our values, but we as a society know them, believe them, and will die to protect them. It is this certainty in our values that the radical Left wants to destroy.

    I understand what Christian fundamentalists are trying to defend, in terms of America’s universal values of liberty and justice for every human being. Do some, maybe most of them, prefer that everyone accepts the divinity of a Savior who died on the cross for our sins? Sure. But who cares? You shouldn’t worry if someone BELIEVES you’re going to hell; you should worry if they TREAT you like hell. Now you can make all the arguments you want that you ARE being treated like hell by the Christian Right, or that you WOULD BE if they “had their way”. But have you actually spent time with fundamentalist Christians, and learned how they believe their Number One commandment is to treat EVERYONE with justice and decency, INCLUDING homesexuals and non-Christians?

    Please…I’ll throw my lot in with them ANY DAY over those who truly WOULD destroy this nation and the values upon which it was built.

    July 10th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
  203. eblair says:

    Pcon–what I do challenge is the idea that liberals have a monopoly on “activism”. It goes both ways–which means the critique of “liberal activist judges” is meaningless

    I do challenge the idea that judges ALWAYS arrive at decisions first. as I pointed out, this likely happens sometimes–they are human beings. I have no way to know if it happens all the time, but I doubt it. I don’t know how anyone could determine this without seeing inside their minds!

    I guess you missed it, but I DID challenge the idea that Alito just interprets the law. I included a link to a statement by a Republican Senator who criticized an Alito decision as “activist”. I don’t have the time to go through all of Roberts’s opinions, but I am quite confident some of them could be seen as “activist”–activism is in the eye of the beholder. often, all it means is you disagree with the result…

    I just don’t buy what you say about religion and the right. You keep making sweeping statements without any support (e.g. “most evangelicals believe…” “most Christian fundamentalists believe X because…”). I gave very specific examples of leading, prominent Republicans who speak words of intolerance. As I pointed out, even some Republicans agree with the assessment of their party as one that is too closely tied to the religious right. I don’t care to go back and forth on this anymore.

    “OF COURSE no reasonable person would imagine taking a child OUT of a same sex couple family just because it is not the ideal institution for childrearing” really? just today, Gov. Huckaby (R-AL), a presidential hopeful said he doesn’t think gays and lesbians should serve as foster parents. http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/07/070806huckabee.htm He wants a ban on this, which would mean gay and lesbian parents currently serving as foster parents in AL would indeed have children removed from their homes.

    you’re right, I don’t think civil unions are a crazy idea, as long as that means gay and lesbian couples get the same rights as married couples. That is a compromise position for me, but yes I don’t see that as crazy. Bush seems to have “flip flopped” on civil unions–the proposed marriage amendment read in part: “Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” “the legal incidents thereof” is civil unions–if civil unions don’t provide rights, they don’t mean anything

    nobody, not even us wacky pro-choicers, disputes that AT SOME POINT, fetuses become viable. Even the Roe decision recognizes that. Roe permits government to prohibit abortion in the third trimester.

    does anyone really think International Answer and the Wolrd Workers’ Party (whatever that is) have any political standing?? Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, and Focus on the Family have a seat at the Republican table. Their officials visit the White House and meet with SCt nominees. The 2 groups you mention are not getting access to the Democratic inner circle.NOW and the ACLU are better comparators as they do have ties to the Dem party but they do not spew the intolerance and hatred that CWA, FRC, and FOF do. The ACLU famously defended the Nazis right to march in Skokie.

    yes, Eugenics is a crazy idea. Margaret Sanger was calling for eugenics 70 years ago. want to talk about what the right was doing back then? Does the Republican party have to answer for Charles Lindbergh’s flirtation with the Nazis? you’re not seriously saying Margaret Sanger’s view on eugenics has anything to do with the Democratic party in 2006 are you?

    saying rights come from a Creator does not, unfortunately, make them any safer.

    we on the left don’t have ANY uncertainty about core American values–liberty, equality, free speech, due process. We’re trying to destroy them?? hardly. we are outraged when these values are trampled–by the warrantless spying program, Guantanamo, erosion of the 4th Amendment. That is completely unwarranted to say liberals are trying to destroy these values

    the religious right does want to impose its morality on the country–on issues like stem cell research, abortion, even contraception (yes, some want to outlaw this too). Republicans like Chris Shays and John Danforth are concerned about the influence the religious right has on their party. You are not, which is fine. But it is not crazy for us to be concerned about this.

    July 10th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
  204. eblair says:

    you say we have a Judeo Christian tradition but “of course” the Constitution is purely secular. that doesn’t make any sense. If the founders were so concerned about establishing a religious tradition, wouldn’t they have said so in the document that established our democratic system? at the very least, wouldn’t they have made clear that rights are provided by the Judeo Christian god? or even have included the reference to a “Creator” included in the Declaration?

    July 10th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
  205. eblair says:

    Pcon “have you actually spent time with fundamentalist Christians”. Indeed I have. I have been to some very conservative Baptist services in small town North Carolina, and spent time with the people who live there, and are indeed fundamentalist Christians.

    I did see good in these people–many are indeed moved to do great things for people they know, their neighbors, friends, family. I am not a Christian, not religious in any way, but I do see value in following what is known as the message of Christ: love.

    unfortunately, at the church services I went to, the ministers mixed in hate. They warned congregants about gays who are trying to take over the country. They told them what must be done to stop these gays (essentially, vote Republican).

    Many of the people I knew are simple people who mean well and have a lot of kindness in them. They have been told that the Bible is literally true, literally the word of God, and they believe it (probably at leats in part because they have also been told that this is the way to heaven). They have also been told that the Bible condemns homosexuality. It also condemns other things–eating pork, certain activities on the sabbath, adultery (for which death is prescribed). But for some reason, leaders focus on homosexuality. There is debate about this in high-flown circles, but the people I know only see black and white. Sometimes that is good, sometimes it is bad.

    My guess/suspicion (and it’s strictly a guess) is that the people I knew are good people trying to do their best. I think thet are being misled by leaders–their local ministers, Pat Robertson, Falwell, Bush, Frist, Lott, Brownback, and others who twist Christ’s message of love into a message of hate. And yes, there was hate in the words I heard people use to discuss “homosexuality”. There is hate in the words of their leaders, and that is probably where they are getting it from

    July 10th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
  206. eblair says:

    didn’t mean to sound condescending there by the way. Who am I to say what’s right and wrong about faith? The people I knew think I’m going to hell for not believing what they do. It offends me that they believe this, but I do not mean to condescend. sorry if it came off that way

    July 10th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
  207. Pinky says:

    ” . . . for some reason, leaders focus on homosexuality . . . ”

    Comment by eblair — July 10, 2006 @ 4:46 pm

    Answer: Because they are bigots. End of story.

    As far as everyone here debating whether or not gays should or should not be “allowed” to get married, the entire debate is deeply offensive. Imagine if there had been a debate as to whether or not the upper crust whites should be allowed to own black people to be used as slaves. If there had been, there would be slavery today.

    This is a question of human rights and equality for everyone. There shouldn’t be a debate. It is not our right to “allow” people to be free. Everyone deserves the same rights as everyone else. If we had a president who had an ounce of decency and moral fiber, he or she would just say equality for all and let the chips fall where they may. Marriage is for everyone. It is not the sole property or dominion of straights.

    July 10th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
  208. PCon says:

    #208: Pinky, go back and read #203, or better yet, I’ll give you my own quote I’m referring to:

    The majority of Christian fundamentalists disagree with the idea of same sex marriage NOT because of a disdain of the practice or the people, although that certainly motivates some of them.

    For the significant majority however, they truly believe that a child deserves the full experience that ONLY a father and mother can bring. ONLY a man can show a child that men are worthy of providing unconditional love balanced with discipline. ONLY a woman can show a child women are worthy of providing the same. Yes, you can bring the extended family member or close family friend to provide that opposite sex parental role, but isn’t that an admission that your nuclear family as it stands cannot provide a child with the unique values that comes with parental gender balance, and you need outside help?

    …you have to admit, a single parent family ALSO is not the ideal institution for childrearing, and no one is clamoring to remove children from those families either. All society is saying (and remember, it is STILL the majority of society at this time) is that we want the term “marriage” to be reserved for this special institution that can provide a child with the unique values and experiences that can only come with parental gender balance within a HOPEFULLY monogamous, permanently unified couple.

    Pinkster, I’m done with this. Really. The only way gay marriage supporters get any backing is when they couch the issue as one of tolerance and equality. If you choose to keep playing that victim game then you’ll always keep the flame raging in yourself and others that you manage to convince. I just explained for you how the vast majority of the opposition to gay marriage is based on something very, very different. Civil unions–with the granting of rights that are given to married couples–is a reasonable compromise that gay marriage supporters on this thread seem to support. If you choose to keep writing off gay marriage opponents as intolerant, homophobic bigots, you’re just refusing to try and understand your opponents and
    their arguments. I’m done with you.

    July 10th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
  209. Pinky says:

    Second rate is not good enough, sorry Pcon-ster. The minute any minority group accepts second rate rights, i.e., “don’t ask don’t tell,” then that group says to the world second rate is good enough for us lowlifes. The majority of society wanted slavery too. Should the U.S. then have kowtowed to that particular “majority?” How about the “majority” that said blacks can’t marry whites? And the same “majority” that said Asians could not marry whites? Etc., etc., etc. Would you have asked blacks, Asians, Jews to compromise? Why do gays always have to bow down in order to gain acceptance from the oppressor. What you see happening now is gays saying you know what, I’m not kissing that particular ass anymore. Blacks did it in the 60s. Gays are doing it now. It’s not playing the victim. It’s saying no thanks and no more to the hate and bigotry. As far as you’re trying for one second to portray the opponents as as anything more than homophobic bigots, then that’s your delusional thinking, and not mine. Go find another lacky to kiss your ass, bow down, and accept second rate human rights. You’ve got to be kidding. And now I am done with you and your hate.

    July 10th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
  210. PCon says:

    Eblair, there are firebreathers on BOTH sides of the political divide, and both of them can be horrendously scary. Check out this recent article in the N.Y. Times, of all papers, citing the inexorable influence over the Democratic Party by the Daily Kos: http://www.nymetro.com/news/politics/powergrid/17578/index.html.

    Markos Moulitsas is a vile, hate spewing creature who’s probably raising his blood pressure to dangerous levels everyday, and as the article states, “the next we read in Newsweek about “his plans to seize control of the Democratic Party”. How about Democratic Underground? Lovely website, isn’t it, with enough profanity to choke a sailor.

    You and I are always going to be motivated by the extremists on each other’s side, while minimizing the influence of our own. My point, Eblair, is that although there is extremism on both sides it is indeed ubiquitous and poisonous on the Left. Just keep your eyes and ears open…

    July 10th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
  211. PCon says:

    Pinky, you’re a jerk scumbag. How’z that for hate? Go “f” off, idiot, and don’t ever address me again.

    July 10th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
  212. Pinky says:

    Ah, yes, doesn’t take much to get the bile going with you pigs. Turn about is fair play, a**hole, so take your own advice and go “f” off idiot, and here’s some advice from me, shove it up your mother-f***ing ass and spin. No doubt you do that all the time anyway, so it shouldn’t be too hard for you to accomplish. And don’t you ever address me again, scumbag jerk bigot KKK member.

    July 10th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
  213. moonbat patrol says:

    scumbag jerk bigot KKK member. liberal translation: OK you won now all I can do is call you names like a little girl.

    July 10th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
  214. PCon says:

    Pinky, come here sweetie, I’ve got a nice kiss for you…

    July 10th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
  215. Pinky says:

    Okay, got it, pcon, moonbat, chris, reddog, et al. are the several vile personalities of one very sick, latent homosexual. I don’t have a kiss for you, sweetie, but I’m sure you can get one at the local truck stop. Run along now, the big boys are waiting for you to practice your favorite moves.

    July 10th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
  216. PCon says:

    Isn’t it amazing everybody, that it doesn’t take much for all of us to devolve to our base, primal insticts? A little bit of insults, or a negative word here and there, and it’s all over. I’m not even going to say it was Pinky’s fault, I got a little out of hand too after his/her comment, and once one of us starts, get out of the way.

    Well, we’re never going to win arguments that way, but it just goes to show that we humans have a helluva challenge trying to rise above the law of nature, which dictates that we just take care of ourselves and the members of “our group”, at the expense of everyone else. Mankind has been succumbing to this temptation since the beginning of time.

    We’ve got to try and live by a higher law, call it the Law of God or whatever you choose, but it’s definitely a law of universal ethics, of treating EVERYONE with justice and decency.

    Well, we’ve all got to keep trying…take care y’all. Had a great time…

    July 10th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
  217. Pinky says:

    Pinky, you’re a jerk scumbag. How’z that for hate? Go “f” off, idiot, and don’t ever address me again.

    Comment by PCon — July 10, 2006 @ 6:56 pm

    Oh, and “sweetie,” you started the name calling first, so by your definition, I won the debate and all you can do is call names like a little girl. Idiot. You retards always sink in your own shit.

    July 10th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
  218. Pinky says:

    Actually, pcon (or whoever you are) your ilk starts at the base primal instincts and then works backward from there. Bigotry just plays out that way, all the time. We (the lefty liberal pinkies of the world) have tried playing this game on the up and up, but as your god Karl Rove has shown us, you don’t get anything by playing fair. The gloves are off. Get used to it. As far as moral highground goes, dear George W. Bush and his gang of goons have shown there’s no room for it under their regime. I think we’ll be seeing a whole lot more name calling and primal instincts on display because we’ve learned you have got to fight fire with fire with this bunch.

    July 10th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
  219. moonbat patrol says:

    I am NOT Pcon! I am moonbat patrol. But I will gladly respond to your post #219. it seems like you and your ilk are the ones getting burned. Liberals have lost consistently since 1994, every state that had so called gay “marriage” on the ballot has soundly rejected it. You are poised to lose again big time in the ‘06 elections due to the party platform of the democrats being one of traitorism, support for sexual and moral degenerates and just being all around stupid and dyfunctional. Even in NY and Mass. you are losing with the so called gay “marriage stupidity. so tell me again who is getting burned. Are liberals that myopic and ignorant that they actually think they are winning????

    July 10th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
  220. eblair says:

    Pinky: “This is a question of human rights and equality for everyone”. Agreed.

    or, as Jon Stewart out it “I think it’s a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.” that is it. either we think gay men and lesbians have the right to love and marry men and women, respectively, or we think there is something wrong about this, something not the same as straight relationships.

    you can pick your sides, you can argue your position isn’t motivated by hate, but this is the bottom line.

    July 10th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
  221. Lora says:

    Pcon,
    I am currently recovering physically from illness (bronchitis) and mentally from the death of a good friend, so I really don’t have the time or energy to respond to all of your points. Besides, eblair seems to have done a pretty good job of answering in a manner reflecting or very close to my own positions.
    Re: Margaret Sanger’s position on eugenics, the present Planned Parenthood organization certainly does not promote that. And as eblair pointed out, it’s no more valid to link a position taken some 70 years ago by someone dead around 40 years than it is to bring up Lindbergh’s and (my addition) Prescott Bush’s flirtation with the Nazis. For your reference, the oldest of my living relatives, who is now about 96, used to work with Sanger for a while. My relative never promoted eugenics–just birth control information and devices–and some of the radical right is trying to make even them harder to obtain again. There have been cases even in so-called liberal big cities like Chicago and Los Angeles of pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions and giving lectures to the women seeking them.
    I have nothing against Abstinency education, which Bush advocates exculsively. However, in areas where only that is being promoted the rates of teenage and out-of-wedlock pregnancies are much higher than in blue states like California and Massachusetts, for example.
    Leaving aside the question of when “life” begins, no women’s group or family planning group recommends late term abortions–except in special cases–because the procedure is rough on the woman’s body and potentially dangerous. All groups I know of recommend abortions, if they are to be done, in the first trimester. South Dakota recently banned all abortions except to save the mother’s life; this includes outlawing them for rape victims. Senator Colburn has recommended the death penalty for all doctors who perform abortions. Isn’t that sweet coming from a licensed doctor himself? And in reality, some Christian right groups have posted on the Internet the names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions, and some of these doctors have been shot dead.
    In regard to your statement, “You shouldn’t worry if someone BELIEVES you’re going to hell; you should worry if they TREAT you like hell,” I am an adult and can handle such things. But what about children? I remember a boy in my elementary school who was from the Christian right and used to tell all the non-Christian kids that they would go to hell. It was such a relief when his family finally moved elsewhere.
    As for Joe Lieberman, California Senator Barbara Boxer, who is pro-choice and anti-Iraq War, is going to campaign for him; and DNC Chairman Howard Dean has wisely said that he will remain neutral about the primary and support in November the candidate chosen by the citizens of Connecticut. I have never lived in Connecticut, so I’m really not in a position to pass judgment. However, it seems to me that if the Democrats in that state do not feel Lieberman is adequately representing them, it is their right to elect a different candidate. Isn’t that what democracy is all about?

    July 11th, 2006 at 2:58 am
  222. eblair says:

    thanks Lora–hope you feel better–sorry to hear both about the illness and about your friend

    interesting point about Dems campaigning for Lieberman–Repubs have been complaining that Lieberman has been booted out of the party, but elected officials like Boxer, Chuck Schumer are supporting him and even actively campaigning for him. I don’t think any Dem in a position of power has ostracized Lieberman.

    July 11th, 2006 at 9:45 am
  223. MNW says:

    Liberals have lost consistently since 1994

    HAHAHAHAHA!

    Go ahead, keep believing that.

    But you might want to check your records of Democratic power in the states. Governorships and state houses have already turned blue in a vast number of swaths of “red” America.

    The times they are a changin’…it’s too bad so many live in fantasyland to even notice.

    July 12th, 2006 at 8:45 am

Jump to Top

About Think Progress | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy (off-site) | RSS | Donate
© 2005-2009 Center for American Progress Action Fund
View Most Popular

Advertisement

What We're About

What We're Fighting For
Social and Economic JusticeHealthy CommunitiesMedia AccountabilityGlobal and Domestic Security

What We're Fighting Against
Public CorruptionIncompetent EstablishmentCorporate MalfeasanceRadical Right-Wing Agenda

Featured

image
Subscribe to the Progress Report



imageTopic Cloud


Visit Our Affiliated Sites

image image
Reports

In-depth studies on select topics

Why Bush's 'Enhanced Interrogation' Program Failed
The Sarah Palin Digest
THE ARCHITECTS OF WAR: WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
A TIMELINE OF THE IRAQ WAR

Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.

Name:
Email:
Tip:
(required)

imageArchives


imageBlog Roll