Redstate

When homosexuals are accommodated it is called tolerance; when Religion is accommodated it is called oppression. The Ninth Circuit has been ruling that way for years.

As long as marriage is considered to be a civil right, same sex unions must logically be permitted. We are seeing the outcomes of letting the debate be carried out under that premise. But marriage has never has been a civil right; it has always been a religious Blessedness - and that is the auspice under which it is to be discussed. Any other 'banner' is a usurpation and a fraud.

As long as government treats married couples differently than non-married couples, it is a public/civil issue.

Member, American Conservative Party

Well, ever since the government involved itself (for tax and also legal reasons for cases in which there was no will when someone died), that status has been hotly argued.

From that perspective, it becomes a civil issue and has often been judged as such in the courts.

I have no problem with civil unions as they are the contractual involvements between adults. I open that up to anyone. If 100 adults want to enter into a GIANT constractual agreement, ok.

It isn't Marriage.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

In our town, no house can be built within 10 feet of the property line.

Can you discern the moral underpinning of this law? Of is it just evil?

Member, American Conservative Party

Zoning Regulations are just that: Regulations. I work with them every day and they change, unlike actual laws, by a board of unelected officials.

That is why they are not Constitutional issues, as was the subject of the post you replied to.

You are making a dishonest comparison.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I will cop to the later, not the former.

Smoking has been outlawed in all public places - including private businesses in this community.

Moral law? Constitutional law? Some communities did it by vote, others by legislation.

Member, American Conservative Party

Those who passed the no smoking laws would say that they did so because it was a matter of public health, which has its roots in morality.

That I disagree with such laws, as an invasion of property rights of business owners doesn't change that those who passed those laws did so on moral grounds.

Hell, even SPEED LIMITS have morality in them. They are (supposedly) based on what a road can safely handle, so the idea is that it is an issue of public health and welfare (not to mention the gas savings of driving at 55 instead of 65)....

I can't think of any laws that do not have a basis in morality.

That we may DISAGREE with the morality or the government mandate.... that doesn't remove the moral stance taken by the law itself.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Make the appeals to morality kinda... lame.

People who support gay marriage do so because they believe that it is far more moral to allow gay marriage than to forbid it.

People who oppose gay marriage do so because they believe that it is far more moral to forbid gay marriage than to allow it.

So then you have to get down into the nitty gritty of what the morality of this vs. that actually is and compare things.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I apologize. I can not support a system that determines my liberties are subject to the moral code determined by the majority - or even a minority. I don't think our Founding Fathers wanted that.

That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

Member, American Conservative Party

I apologize. I can not support a system that determines my liberties are subject to the moral code determined by the majority - or even a minority. I don't think our Founding Fathers wanted that.

It has nothing to do with Founding Fathers.... it is the nature of Law.

It is, intrinsically, what a law is: An extention of a moral code, enforced by mandate.

Why is murder illegal? Because of the morality of human life and the morality of removal of that basic right to life.

If it makes you feel better, look at it the other way around:

Morals are unofficial laws with no teeth, enforced by societial acceptance rather than force of punishment by government.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Because all this time, I thought our laws were based on rights.

Member, American Conservative Party

Recognizing intrinsic rights of a person is a moral stance on the value and freedom a person has by nature of being a person.

so while laws are checked against our rights to see if the government has the ability to apply them, the law itself is still based on the moral basis of those who push for it to become a law.

I don't know that you're a moron and the mock humility is kind of bothersome, but that's another issue.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I certainly am not going to attempt to dissuade you from your morals. If your position is one that the laws and rights we have are based on a set of agreed (at the time) upon morals, then attempting to change the laws or rights first has to change the morals - for a principled person, an impossibility.

I took these words at face value:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

They may have been based on a set of morals, but I see no judgment, no values here. I have taken this phrase to mean that the rights are there, whether enumerated or not. For me, the morals are on top of the rights, not their support.

As for the mock humility - I assumed as Conservatives we were on the same page - fighting for rights, those inalienable rights. From your positions, and comments, it seems the majority of Conservatives are just fighting for the supremacy of one set of morals over another.

That is a fight I can not join, because it is a fight with no chance of success. Principled people on both sides will never change by definition...there can be no compromise, no meeting of the minds.

Member, American Conservative Party

As for the mock humility - I assumed as Conservatives we were on the same page - fighting for rights, those inalienable rights.

Right, but you still don't have a right to force the majority to change the definition of the word Marriage to mean what it does not, because you, the minority, deem it so.

That is what you keep arguing for, and when the people don't vote your way, you seem to not have a problem with the courts forcing your issue.

Tell me how that is a conservative ideal.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Principles are the MOTIVATIONS that influence the creation and to enforcement of laws. However, laws are made in accordance with a PROCESS that can easily go off the tracks with respect to sound principles.

Conservatives love the Declaration of Independence, but if you cite the Declaration of Independence in an argument to Justice Scalia, he will rightfully say "its not a source of law in the US."

Justice Scalia is exclusively concerned with laws and the U.S. Constitution. The Federalist Papers may give insights to interpretting the Constitution, but they are not sources of law. Same to be said for the Declaration of Independence.

I agree with you the laws should be based on Founding Principles. However, that does not mean that laws contrary to those principles can't be proper laws. For example, take the income tax. A constitutional amendment was enacted to enable to income tax. Now laws take that opening and do all sorts of things contrary to the principles of the Founders.

Income tax is still the law of the land, despite the deviation from sound principles.

Understand?

Excellent insight.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Because all this time, I thought our laws were based on rights.

Member, American Conservative Party

I suspect that your (or anybody's, really) answer to this question contains pretty much the thing that we're really arguing about.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Because all this time, I thought our laws were based on rights.

Member, American Conservative Party

and on principles.

However, there are lots of dumb laws that seem to infringe all sorts of rights.

We have a system of self-government. From a strictly legal standpoint, the entire system can be modified if a super-majority can be sustained long enough to go through the hoops of a Constitutional Amendment.

Principles are the goals we strive to implement.
Process are the tools we have to build things out of the dirt and mud.

The Poet Alexander Pope wrote a poem about the dual nature of man, being both angel and animal.

We can be angelic in our principles, but in terms of process, we are animals.

The following points are true and not contradictory:

(1) The Founders undoubtedly believe that certain uses of power were true to the spirit of freedom and that others were not

(2) The Founders expected elected representatives to at least try to do what is right instead of what is merely expedient

(3) The Founders set up a system where the majority rules in most cases, and in cases where it does not, different types and frameworks of super-majorities do rule

Put another way, the Founders created a system that included the Bill of Rights, and a means to amend or even remove rights in the Bill of Rights.

An amendment to the Constitution deleting the Second Amendment would be legal, it just wouldn't be the right thing to do.

Your rights are subject to the whims of the majority in many cases, and to the whims of the super-majority in all other cases. However, it does not make the whims right, it merely makes them legal.

If 80% of the country wants to repeal the First Amendment and that support can sustain itself long enough to amend the constitution, your legal right to free speech is gone (rule by the super-majority hampered by procedural requirements).

The only other alternative to this is judges that just make of the laws as they see fit.

The following points are true and not contradictory:

(1) The Founders undoubtedly believe that certain uses of power were true to the spirit of freedom and that others were not

(2) The Founders expected elected representatives to at least try to do what is right instead of what is merely expedient

(3) The Founders set up a system where the majority rules in most cases, and in cases where it does not, different types and frameworks of super-majorities do rule

Put another way, the Founders created a system that included the Bill of Rights, and a means to amend or even remove rights in the Bill of Rights.

An amendment to the Constitution deleting the Second Amendment would be legal, it just wouldn't be the right thing to do.

Your rights are subject to the whims of the majority in many cases, and to the whims of the super-majority in all other cases. However, it does not make the whims right, it merely makes them legal.

If 80% of the country wants to repeal the First Amendment and that support can sustain itself long enough to amend the constitution, your legal right to free speech is gone (rule by the super-majority hampered by procedural requirements).

The only other alternative to this is judges that just make of the laws as they see fit.

The following points are true and not contradictory:

(1) The Founders undoubtedly believe that certain uses of power were true to the spirit of freedom and that others were not

(2) The Founders expected elected representatives to at least try to do what is right instead of what is merely expedient

(3) The Founders set up a system where the majority rules in most cases, and in cases where it does not, different types and frameworks of super-majorities do rule

Put another way, the Founders created a system that included the Bill of Rights, and a means to amend or even remove rights in the Bill of Rights.

An amendment to the Constitution deleting the Second Amendment would be legal, it just wouldn't be the right thing to do.

Your rights are subject to the whims of the majority in many cases, and to the whims of the super-majority in all other cases. However, it does not make the whims right, it merely makes them legal.

If 80% of the country wants to repeal the First Amendment and that support can sustain itself long enough to amend the constitution, your legal right to free speech is gone (rule by the super-majority hampered by procedural requirements).

The only other alternative to this is judges that just make of the laws as they see fit.

n/t

self-govern himself. If he didn't we wouldn't need laws to govern over and protect us from each other.

Because man cannot govern himself, we need laws so that man may more effectively govern himself.

Because man refuses to spend his own money wisely, we need taxes so that man can have the money spent effectively on his behalf.

And so on and so forth.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

that properly balances the individual rights of different people. Most if not all rights are not absolute.

I have the right to free speech. I don't have the right to break into your house at 4am and give you a 30 minute ranting in favor of Ron Paul. Your property rights trump my speech rights in that instance.

As technology and economics expand, it becomes harder and harder for even federalists and libertarians acting in good faith to agree on the proper balance.

There are all sorts of examples where my rights get trounced in favor of other rights and interests.

For example, no serious Constitutional scholar would disagree with the U.S. government can take ownership of my home (after providing compensation) to put a nuclear missile silo where my basement used to be.

Rights are like ripples of water in a lake or ocean. They can be trumped and engulfed by other ripples.

We hope these decisions are made carefully and based on principle.

Under the Constitution, if you can get 80% of the country to gang up on the remaining 20% for an extended period of time, the 20% can be turned into the slaves of the 80%.

The only defense against this is the hearts, minds, and souls of your fellow citizens.

This is the ultimate gut check.

If our society en masse loses its ability to reason, or foresakes it, we are doomed.

The only defense against this is the hearts, minds, and souls of your fellow citizens.

Nah, I also have guns.

I give those up under two conditions:

1.) They are pried from my cold, dead hands.
2.) one round of hot lead at a time.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Arguments like, hey, maybe the Jim Crow laws were immoral... but at least they followed the process.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

one could make that case, I guess.... but the quick rebuttal is "Yeah, but they were done away with by the same process."

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

But before then, they would have been legal but immoral, joining a long litany of legal but bad laws.

I am not sugar coating this. I think it is helpful to realize that 80% of the country, could legally make the other 20% their slaves.

The point is that the Constitution does not eliminate the possibility of mob rule.

It places super-majority requirements on certain things.
it places procedural hoops that need to be performed.

The only defense against tyranny is that a sufficient % of the population reject it.

That is the bottom line

Prior to our Constitution, most governments were the other way around.

Around 10% (or less) of the population could make 90% (or more) of the population its total slaves. (Particularly in cases of monarchies or dictatorships)

We provided for a near total reversal, without resorting to total anarchy.

Our Founding Fathers were very smart indeed and, I believe, Guided by a certain Architect.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

In Vino Veritas

Courts didn't enforce the Constitution as it then existed.

Judicial activism in not striking a law.

At the same time Ohio was ratifying the 14th, it was passing state laws essentially barring Blacks from entering the state. The whole of modern interpretations of the 14th is nothing more than judicial activism. The really important thing about the 14th was that it repudiated Confederate debt and guaranteed that US war bonds would be repaid in gold; that's what the authors really cared about. Second, and a far away second, was offering some protection to freed slaves that they would not once again become enslaved through state law. The rest of what we're all told the 14th means is just modern day twisting and bending of its words.

In Vino Veritas

blacks in the same position as whites. That is the plain meaning of the words.

Bork addresses your point by saying that Brown v Board should have made a finding that facts and history showed that separate could not be equal and to thus explicitely reverse Plessy and not base the decision on the need to have whites in the same classroom as blacks to be equal.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

the majority chooses to live within. To break these boundaries brings some form of punishment or penalty. In regards to homosexual marriage the penalty is simply the denial of some civil protections. Some people just find this excessively cruel to deny two love birds some civil protections, but there are many forms of sexual orientation that are equally denied, that is for the time being.

And yes, socialism is a form of over-governance just as libertarianism is a form of under-governance. Hince the reason we have legislatures to weigh things in balance.

The founders would find the courts decision against the will of the majority reprehensible.

Ok, then I guess I will be accused of finally showing true colors. If laws are based on morality, then laws that infringe on my liberties - property rights, helmet laws, no smoking in my business - are in fact an attempt to impose the morality of others on me. Because the principle that "the individual is sovereign" and "individual rights" are secondary to the moral basis of the law.

That laws might find their basis in a set of moral beliefs that I do not share I find that to be an intolerable affront to everything I think/thought this country stands for.

It seems that such a basis for laws can be used to justify virtually any affront against my liberty. Is this the system we support?

Member, American Conservative Party

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

If laws are based on morality, then laws that infringe on my liberties - property rights, helmet laws, no smoking in my business - are in fact an attempt to impose the morality of others on me. Because the principle that "the individual is sovereign" and "individual rights" are secondary to the moral basis of the law.

I don't agree, but I can see the logic you used, yes.

Remember that we are not an anarchy where you are an island onto yourself.

It seems that such a basis for laws can be used to justify virtually any affront against my liberty. Is this the system we support?

I didn't say I agreed with their morality, nor do I believe that every of morality requires a law. I was merely addressing your point regarding morality found in law.

Remember, you may want to run around naked in public, smearing green jello on your body. Doesn't mean it is an infringement of your rights if you cannot.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I didn't say I agreed with their morality, nor do I believe that every of morality requires a law. I was merely addressing your point regarding morality found in law.

But you don't disagree that it is a valid basis for creating laws...the only disagreement is what/who's morality is the basis?

Member, American Conservative Party

Laws are bits of moral code that a government chooses (by whatever means the government does the choosing, be it monarch edict or democratic vote) to enforce.

So yes, you create laws to enforce morality upon the public.

Now, where we has humans disagree is not whether or not laws contain morals, but upon which moral code to we base laws?

Here in the United States, they are based on a Judeo-Christian moral worldview.

In Iran it is an Islamic worldview.

Here in the United States, we have a particular focus on personal freedom, which is also part of a Judeo-Christian worldview, and so we have far fewer laws governing personal action (though the Democrats are working hard to change that) than much of Europe or the Middle East, etc.

Our disagreements come from what moral basis to use and whether or not it is the role of the government to apply a law to a given situation.

However, none of that changes what a law is.

If you do not think that laws are based on morals, what do you define a moral as, what do you draw your morals from and upon what do YOU think laws are based if not morals?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Given the discussion, I am unable to answer your questions. They are beyond what I have ever considered.

MY system of personal rules, morals(?) is based on the premise that the individual is sovereign. I have inherent rights on the basis that I exist. However, this absolute right to myself, is constrained by the FACT that YOU are sovereign also. For each right inherent in me, an equal, inalienable right exists in you and every other human. Any affront on your rights by me is acknowledgment that my rights are neither inherent nor inalienable.

From this, everything else flows.

Member, American Conservative Party

to maximize human freedom for the most people and over a long term time horizon. Thatis my governing principle for making laws. I definitely acknowledge that a lot of immoral behavior should be legal behavior. There should be a gap between what is ethically and morally desired and what is legally required.

That being said, our law making process, however aspirational and principled-guided it is, is still at its core a process.

If 80% of the people on an extended basis want to make Roman Catholicism illegal by amending the First Amendment, they can legally do so.

I would argue against such a change as being contrary to the principles of the contrary. However, it would not be illegal.

My choices at that point would be departure from the country, civil disobediance, or advocacy to amend the constitution.

Ultimately, the only defense we have against tyranny is that enough of the country WONT amend in the constitution in ways that are stupid.

However, when Judges twist and contort the Constitution to fit their indvidual desires, they will risk at some point getting people to think more and more about using constitutional amendments to resolve issues. That is a door I would rather not open, but if it happens, it will be the fault of judicial activists.

55 mph? 65 mph? You are joking.

They'll take 95 mph away from me when they pry my steering wheel out of my cold, dead hands...

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Eh, I don't speed.

I drive in the right land, going the speed limit.

Now, there are times I can't do that. Flow of Traffic laws and all that.

But I'm one of those nerds who, at three am in a tiny town, will stop at a stop sign.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

to facilitate neighborhood harmony by avoiding dislocation resulting from an error in the property line (disputes have occurred where people end up owning the other persons wall)

You may laugh at this, but the Supreme Court does far more gymnastics in interpretting the commerce clause of the Constitution

Plat Setbacks also ensure that no Use will require a person to violate the property rights of another.

However, most Zoning Regulations are to ensure that an area 'look pretty' and have nothing to really do with property rights.

In fact, some have argued that Zoning Requirements are unconstitutional as they infringe upon the property rights of the property owner (but good luck getting ANY government to relinquish power)

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

While the state DOES hand out a license to "Sell X", the ability to sell Medication X is not a requirement to sell Medication X.

The license permits sales, it does not, and ought not, require it.

There should be no requirement that a Pharmacy MUST sell any product.

By requiring a pharmacy to sell something they do not want to remove the ability for the pharmacy owners to run the business as they see fit.

While we may disagree as to the need for a license (and I admit that I go back and forth on the licensing issue.), I find it odd that you would condemn the need for a license, but then try to use the license as a 'forcing tool' to require a business sell something.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

The existence of the license automatically means that no one, no one at all, can legally sell X except those folks with licenses.

If I try to sell X without a license, I will be thrown in prison.

If I try to buy X from someone who is selling X without a license, I will be thrown in prison.

If I go to my doctor and my doctor writes out a perscription for some X for me and I go to my local license holder and say "you are the only one in this area authorized to sell X, here is my note from my doctor, I have my co-pay here in my sweaty little hand" and the pharmacist says "nah, that's no good here"... then he is not holding up his half of the bargain that the license entails.

Now if Pharmacy A is across the parking lot from Pharmacy B and Pharmacy A is run by Christian Scientists and they sell only rubbing alcohol and candy bars while Pharmacy B, a few dozen yards away, sells pretty much everything... this is not a big deal and folks who make a stink about it are being fairly silly.

But if Pharmacy A is the only place in town where you can legally buy X and they, for reasons of conscience, refuse to sell it... then there is a problem.

While I agree that the best solution to the problem is to say "hey, no more barriers to entry! If you want to sell or buy X, you can!", I also have enough reason to leap to the conclusion that this ain't gonna happen.

Once again: This is the best solution.

Given, however, that the War On Drugs stands in the way of these things (and it's not going away any time soon), we're stuck with wondering how to deal with people colluding with the government to prevent a legal product from being sold to people who have a doctor's prescription to purchase it from licensed distributors.

So I ask you: Apart from pie-in-the-sky solutions such as "have an amazon.com for prescriptions", what solution do you have? Tell people who have doctor's prescriptions to purchase X from a licensed distributor that if they don't like living next to a Christian Scientist Pharmacy that they should move because taking licenses away from Christian Scientists in order to give them to some agnostic pharmacist is a violation of Liberty?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

The existence of the license automatically means that no one, no one at all, can legally sell X except those folks with licenses.

Exactly right. For many licensed things, I believe it is to just function as job security, but that's another issue.

If I go to my doctor and my doctor writes out a perscription for some X for me and I go to my local license holder and say "you are the only one in this area authorized to sell X, here is my note from my doctor, I have my co-pay here in my sweaty little hand" and the pharmacist says "nah, that's no good here"... then he is not holding up his half of the bargain that the license entails.

There we disagree. A license grants the ability to do something. It is not a REQUIREMENT to do something.

I have a license to carry a concealed firearm in the state of Oklahoma (and other states that honor it), but it is not a REQUIREMENT that I do so. If I carry a concealed firearm without a license, I go to jail... but I am not REQUIRED to carry a firearm.

I have a license to drive in the State of Oklahoma. If I drive without a license in the state of Oklahoma, I go to jail, but there is no REQUIREMENT that I drive.

I am certified to perform CPR. If I do not have such a certification and I damage someone, I can be sued (With a certification, I am protected by "Good Samaritan" Laws), but there is no REQUIREMENT to administer CPR (but you can bet that I will, even if it is Michael Moore or President Fonzie from Iran)

But if Pharmacy A is the only place in town where you can legally buy X and they, for reasons of conscience, refuse to sell it... then there is a problem.

You see a problem, I see an opportunity to get a license and open up Pharmacy B, in direct competition.

Tell people who have doctor's prescriptions to purchase X from a licensed distributor that if they don't like living next to a Christian Scientist Pharmacy that they should move because taking licenses away from Christian Scientists in order to give them to some agnostic pharmacist is a violation of Liberty?

I would petition the city/town/county/borough government to work on getting Pharmacies to move in. Call Wallgreens or Wallmart. (In fact, I believe one of those two can mail you medications.)

The market DOES provide a way without mandating what private businesses are required to sell (Oddly enough, this sounds a bit like the other thread about the government mandating what a health insurance company be REQUIRED to cover.)

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I am not saying that health insurance companies be required to cover any/everything.

I am, however, saying that the State creates a distortion of the market when it says that only Licensed Practitioners can provide X, it is the agency where Licenses are handed out, it can arrest people for purchasing X when they purchase from a non-Licensed distributor, it can arrest people for selling X when they do not have a license, and it is lobbyable by the license-holders to limit the number of licenses handed out.

And waving aside all of those things in order to say "What about Liberty?" when it is questioned whether licensed distributors who refuse to sell X are failing to hold up their end of the deal strikes me as... well...

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

As I said, I go back and forth on licensing.

I'm not sure that it is the Government's job to regulate and ensure quality and honest nature of vital businesses as Doctors and Pharmacies.

I know that I wouldn't want to learn firsthand that this medication I'm taking is CALLED Metformin, but is actually flower mixed with pool chemicals, because it was cheaper.

However, I don't know that it is the government's job to regulate it.

So I see your point of view on the Licensing..... I just can't agree that a solution is to require that a business sell Medication X if they do not wish to.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

It's my opinion that it should be the job of the FDA to slap a label on the bottle saying "The FDA has determined that Doc Johnson's 100% Snake Oil contains 100% Snake Oil" and if you find a bottle of Nurse Thompson's 100% Snake Oil that doesn't have that label slapped on it, you'd best think twice about whether it really contains 100% snake oil.

But that's another rant entirely.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

When I get my Metformin, I never see the bottle.

I get generic bottles used by pharmacies.

They take the right number of Metformin pills out of the Metformin Bottle and put it into this generic bottle that they put a label on.

Their license is what gives me the confidence that what is in that bottle is metformin and not rat poison.

Though, if it were rat poison, I wouldn't be around to complain.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Because the Tylenol is still in the Tylenol bottle without having been counted by someone and put into a generic bottle.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Those who make Tylenol have a license to make Tylenol.

And, at least with Tylenol, I have a bottle there from the manufacturer saying what is in it, with a tamper-proof cap.

When I get a prescription from a Pharmacy, I get a generic bottle with a label the pharmacy printed stuck on it, with a cap called 'childproof' that any 4 year old could open, with no tamper-proof seals.

That's where I go back and forth on the licensing. I am generally opposed to any government mandated quality control, and it is an issue I struggle with.... finding the balance, and all that jazz.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

a basic right in some sense to be able to purchase a prescription. However the reality is that purchase of a prescription is no different from any other economic transaction. If I go to the only grocery store in my town and they don't sell crackers then I either drive somewhere else or do without. There is no reason why any business in a free market should be required to sell any product it does not wish to sell. To require it to do so is intrusive.

The problem is that too many today have assumed they have certain rights to purchase etc. and that a private business that will not meet their requirements is denying their rights. This is a modern conceptual idea. The conservative view says that additional business will arise to provide the needed products/services and in the mean time the consumer must do without.

You are assuming some basic right deny me the ability to purchase, for example, birth control pills.

Let's say that I suffer from a monthly sickness that totally leaves me positively wrecked for three days and there is a magic little pill that can turn "positively wrecked for three days" into "2 days of general malaise". I take this magic pill, once a day, and find that the quality of my life is improved dramatically.

You say "The flaw in your argument is that you have assumed a basic right in some sense to be able to purchase a prescription."

I rejoin: You assume some basic right to tell me that I shouldn't be able to purchase it.

But let's go on:

"The conservative view says that additional business will arise to provide the needed products/services and in the mean time the consumer must do without."

This is where we come into the whole "licensing" thing.

If the State can deny folks a license, then the State can prevent the additional businesses from arising.

This is the distortion the government creates in the market.

This is what I'm objecting to.

But I say, okay, so let's say that that isn't going away, what do we do when the licensed distributors say that they have no intention of distributing?

Making appeals to Liberty seems odd, in this case... as the Liberty of the person to be able to purchase, for example, birth control is denied. The Liberty of any given person to open a competitive shop is denied... and so when someone says "take the license from this guy and give it to that guy who will distribute", people start screaming "Liberty, Liberty, Liberty".

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Are you suggesting that the Government is conspiring with Pharmacies to not allow birth control?

I guess I'm a bit confused there.

See, there are, in today's age, alot of different ways to get prescriptions, even in the highly unusual and odd case of only having ONE pharmacy anywhere near you, which apparently does not sell any medication.

There are multiple pharmacies that allow you to receive medication via the mail.

If anything, there is even LESS of an excuse to not be able to get your medication than in times past.

These days, if you want birth control, move to New England and join the 6th grade. They give it out there without parental notification or consent.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

That being cool with the following:

1) The State having the power to say who can sell X.
2) The State having the power to say who cannot sell X.
3) The State having the power to imprison those who sell X without a license.
4) The State having the power to imprison those who buy X from an unlicensed distributor.
5) The State having the power to deny licenses to qualified applicants.

Making appeals to "Liberty" when it comes to protecting the monopoly power of the licensed distributor to refuse service to prescription holders is not particularly moving as an argument.

For the record, and I believe I said this above... I would be cool with something like Amazon.com for prescriptions and I think that that would solve the vast, vast, vast majority of the problems.

If it is, in fact, possible to get the stuff from Walgreens.com or Walmart.com, I'd be cool with that.

However I suspect that The War On Drugs has done a great job of hobbling exactly what you can and cannot get via the internet. (People may be using that iodine for making meth rather than a first aid kit, you know.)

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

on the part of business to refuse to sell certain products. This basic function of American economics is backed up by hundreds of years of free market economic history.

In regards to the licensing thing -- I understand your point and agree that the particular scenario you posit is problematic. However, in my experience government does not hand out a "limited" number of licenses to pharmacies so I am not aware of any instance where they hypothetical situation you are concerned with actually exits.

Additional I would still maintain that the historical response to being unable to find a product locally is to find it elsewhere. This has always been the case and I see no overwhelming reason to change this pattern of economic response. A diabetic might "need" low sodium food from their supermarket. They might live longer if it was available. But you don't take them to court if they choose not to sell it.

What I am not cool with is the government denying the right of people without licenses to sell the thing in question while protecting the monopoly power of the licensed distributor of the thing in question.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I would also be uncomfortable with the government acting as you suggest. The reason I responded is I have seen the argument used before as a reason to require business to sell certain items and I am not aware of any instances where consumers have actually been denied the ability to purchase said products.

Thanks

we should do away with bar exams for lawyers..arbitrarily discriminating against one group from another to 'practice' law ahould be stopped!!

I'm not entirely sure of this but the ability to sell the 'X' at a retail establishment comes down to having a licensed pharmacist on staff (i.e. no pharmacist no license to buy or sell). Even hospitals are required to have a pharmacist to supervise the dispensing of medications.

Again using your reasoning, if I open a convenience store and don't carry your favorite brand of anything you should be able to go to the state and force me to carry it. If your doctor prescribes something he knows is not immediately available he can start his own dispensing pharmacy (new revenue source!) or direct you to where it can be purchased! There is no reason to force a privately owned business to sell anything it doesn't want to.
If you want that much 'control' shut down the private pharmacies and make them all state run We all know how well that would work out!!!

"Again using your reasoning, if I open a convenience store and don't carry your favorite brand of anything you should be able to go to the state and force me to carry it."

This is not my position. The interesting thing is that if you went to Walgreen's and said "I would like to purchase some Dr Pepper" and the White Coated person behind the counter said "We don't serve Caffeine-drinkers here, perhaps you'd be happier in California", you could come up to me and say "dude, can I buy a Dr Pepper off of you?" and I could sell you a Dr Pepper and no one would kick down my door and point a gun at me for doing so.

This is not the case for Yaz (see our ad in Ladies Home Weekly).

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

How about Oxycontin or Oxycodone? Why should I need a prescription to get it?? Why can't I just plunk down my money and get what I want?? There have been a number of pharmacies in smaller towns here who no longer carry some of the more powerful pain killers because they've been burglarized too often. Are you going to penalize them for not carrying the drug you need??

I really do favor a limited government. I think a 50% reduction in no DOD positions would be a good start.

This is one area where I truly believe government licensing to control precription medications is a good thing! Requiring a licensed pharmacist to oversee the dispensing of controlled medications gives a greater surety that these medications will not be misused. The threat of losing your license would tend to make you more responsible. Will it completely control misuse? No, but 90% is better than 0%.

Unless and until all pharmacies become government owned and managed they are still PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES! As such they are free to stock or not stock anything they are legally entitiled to sell.

You're arguing that it requires a license is a red herring. Anyone who wants a license can get the education, take the test, pass, pay the fee and get a license. Pharmacists are a high demand profession. You'll get job offers way before you graduate. There are no limitations to the number of licenses the state will issue! You might have a leg to stand on if there were a severely limited number of licenses available, but there aren't so you don't.

Look at it this way, most states require you pass a bar exam to practice law. That fact has not led to a lawyer shortage has it??? Got a problem with your local pharmacy? Find another one and give them your business or get a license and start your own. If the one you don't do business with loses enough customers they may change, go out of business or you could buy it and get into the pharmacy business and run it any way you please!!!

Would probably get you to start yelling about The Children. (I would have used antibiotics as an example rather than Oxycontin were I arguing against me.)

As for the argument that if you don't like that the only place where you can legally buy X decides not to sell it (this isn't a question of stocking it, it's a question of being willing to order it and sell it to you) then you need to go to school for one/two years, apply for a license, then open your own business...

This strikes me as a bit of an undue burden.

Again: If there was something like an Amazon.com for prescriptions, this would all be moot.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

That creates an opportunity for a new competitor to come in and offer a full range of products.

Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite

"Licensing" creates a barrier to entry and thus a market distortion if the government upholds the monopoly power of the extant licensed providers.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

These aren't nuclear secrets...

Getting a license isn't that hard to do. Yes, it does involve some education and may take a year or two to get the degree required for a license....

but we're not talking about needing top secret status to ensure that nuclear secrets stay secret. (Are there any left? I mean, with Jimmy Carter spouting off, who knows if any nuclear secrets are left.)

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

"I would like to purchase some X from you, the sole licensed distributor in the area, and I have a prescription for it here."

"We don't cater to perverts like you. Perhaps you'd be happier in San Francisco."

This creates an undue burden on the customer.
Again, the best solution, to my mind, is not to force the pharmacy to start carrying Prescription-Strength Sudafed or whatever.
It's to make Prescription-Strength Sudafed or whatever available to whomever wishes to buy it from multiple, multiple sources (like an amazon.com for prescriptions!) or to lower the barriers to entry to become a pharmacist or to allow pretty much anyone with a storefront to sell pretty much anything on any shelf (pre-packaged aspirin is available pretty much everywhere... why not pre-packaged Oxycontin? It can be like 1910!).

But I understand that any/all of these solutions that I think are better aren't acceptable to most folks. I'm okay with that.

But the fact that they aren't okay with the other solutions I'm proposing is what makes me wrinkle my brow when they suggest that we're dealing with a "Liberty" issue when a pharmacist refuses to sell this, that, or the other.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

If I choose to live hours from a major city and a major airport, is my liberty unduely burdened?

I made the decision where to live.

If someone wants a drugstore on every corner, there are plenty of places they could move too.

Liberty is not the government guaranteeing that you can have your cake and eat it to.

If easy access to pharmaceutical products is a high priority, the person can choose to live where such products are readily available.

If living in a rural area that is sparsely populated is a high priority, the person can choose to live accordingly.

There is no liberty right to have the advantages of a certain location without the disadvantages.

There is no undue burden on liberty if a person chooses to live in the mountains but does not have a lot of options for good cell phone coverage.

You are ignoring the fact that people can choose where to live.

...forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

1.) I've lived in some pretty remote, small towns, but there was always more than ONE pharmacy. Always. The idea that there's some town somewhere in which there is only one place within one brazillion miles to get medicine is kind of a shady hypothetical you're proposing.

2.) Tell me why a Pharmacist would know the sexual orientation of a person getting medication? Last time I viewed my medical record I didn't see a reference to "Lance is Straight, so you can treat him like a real person."

I lived in a small town called Victora, MN. Within half an hour of me was a Walmart, two Targets, a handful of Walgreens and 3 pharmacies that operated inside of Doctor's offices.

There really is no shortage of pharmacies or pharmacists. Especially not now that you can have your prescription faxed to walgreens and have your medications mailed to you.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I have no problem with this place or that place refusing to stock any given item.

If, however, a licensed provider of a product refuses to sell said product and that creates an undue burden on the citizenry, then that is a problem.

I've said, again and again, what I think the better solutions to this issue are... as well as to why the appeals to liberty on the part of the pharmacy owner strike me as sort of hollow.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

(1) move
(2) pursuade someone to open a business in the area
(3) invest themselves to open a business
(4) travel to obtain the item

If, however, a licensed provider of a product refuses to sell said product and that creates an undue burden on the citizenry, then that is a problem.

Yes, but having to go to Walmart instead of Walgreens hardly qualifies as 'undue burden on the citizenry'

What it creates is a niche market for Walmart.

I've said, again and again, what I think the better solutions to this issue are... as well as to why the appeals to liberty on the part of the pharmacy owner strike me as sort of hollow.

Uh, a Pharmacist saying "No, the government doesn't have a right to REQUIRE me to sell Medication X." is an issue of liberty and rights of property/business ownership. That the government will not allow you to buy oxycodone by the truckload from any and every source you can find, as you see fit.... that is kind of irrelevant.

The government saying you can't sell something is the same as the government saying that you have to. It is the government mandating what you can do.

That you're more upset about your inability to get narcotics on demand than you are about the government's attempts to force a business to sell something it does not want to sell kind of confuses me.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

It's one thing if you were discussing a rural county office with only one clerk around, but in LA county you've got hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of qualified clerks. What's wrong with a clerk being allowed to pass off the request to his buddy behind the desk? Why does the LA City Attorney want to stick his finger in people's eyes with his aggressive language - this is imposing an agenda NOW rather than trying to show some humanity and sensitivity.

This policy seems designed to evoke a reaction (which the attorney can then skewer with accusations of homophobia, racism, etc.) rather than to try to win hearts and minds. But I guess if you've got the power for the moment, it's time to pin your opponent against the wall and start screwing.

It could be interesting to look into the LA County attorney's past behavior - this sounds like he's got an axe to grind.

Hopefully this will be an outlier in the larger public discourse.

After all, regardless of how the November initiative goes down, gays and gay marriage aren't going away in the public debate (just as abortion remains on the front burner) - and if we can't treat those on the other side with some decency, then we're going to just fan the flames of civic discord unnecessarily into a raging inferno.

And Rightly So!

Below, somewhere...

I've got no problem with this guy or that guy saying "sorry, you changed my job description!" as long as it doesn't create an undue burden. If, however, the only clerk willing to do a gay marriage ceremony has a backlog of such cases and the conscientious objectors have open dockets... allowing heterosexual folk to mosey in, get 'er dun, then mosey out...

Well, the "separate but equal" *ISN'T*.

And then we have a problem.

And, I'll say again, my sympathy for public servants' distaste at the various creeds of the citizenry goes only so far.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Look, I don't see that we have much, if any, disagreement on the small office scenario, but that's not what's going on in Los Angeles.

We've got one of the most populous county in the state, clearly no shortage of available clerks - probably even multiple clerks at the same office.

What then is going on with the LA City (not county) Attorney muscling in to a county issue and pre-emptively saying that no accomodation is possible (versus the attitude in San Diego)?

Especially given the long case histories in the country and state of employers trying to accomodate to their employees on all sorts of other issues.

Don't you think there's a rather intolerant attitude coming out from this City Attorney, as I've discussed above - and tolerance is what the whole topic of the blog is about?

And the irony is that this intolerance is coming out in the guise of enforcing tolerance.

And Rightly So!

say about 10 per hour for breaks, that's about 80 per day, wait...make that 60 (civil servants don't all work 8 hr days) That's 300 per 5 day week. So the 'happy' couple may have to get 'civil ceremonied' on a different day than they want. Get an appointment. Hetero couples have that same problem and have to find a different day. Their choice usually comes down to what day is my pastor or minister or priest available! What if the illegal immigrant couple want a ______ (fill in the with language of your choice) ceremony and there's only one clerk who can do the ceremony in ______ (fill in the with language of your choice)and she's backlogged? There's a large asian population in L.A.! How about Mandarin Chinese or Japanese? The county court house ain't a fast food drive up!

For that matter why don't we do away with the ceremony altogether. The original pupose of the verbal commitment was because people were illiterate making verbal oaths the only way that they could communicate their promises. As someone once said " a verbal promise ain't worth the paper it's printed on". The only real interest the government has is in witnessing the signatures on the document. All the flowery stuff and the "I do's" are just window dressing to the signatures on the dotted lines of the 'civil union' or 'marriage' contract. Eliminate all the 'stuff'! Get it down to the only thing the gov't cares about: the piece of paper. The whole thing should go something like this:

1) Two Humans request an 'official' piece of paper
2) Two Humans fill out the 'official' piece of paper and return it to county clerk.
3) County clerk checks that 'official' piece of paper is correctly filled out.
4) County clerk verifies identity of the two humans.
5) County clerk witnesses the two humans signing the 'official' piece of paper.
6) County clerk places 'official county seal' on 'official' piece of paper
7) County clerk gives the two humans a copy of the completed 'official' piece of paper.
8) County clerk collects fee and says 'NEXT'!

Don't give me that liberal whiney argument that just because you can't have it exactly the way you want it, right now, it's an infringement on your rights!

I think that the L.A. county clerks who object should take the county to court for infringing on their rights and should have the court place an injunction on all county business until the matter is resolved. The clerks should fight this all the way to the Supreme Court and stretch it out for the next 5 or 6 years!! Come to think of it , shutting down L.A. for 5 years would be a good GREAT thing!!

For the record, I'm cool with civil unions.

As far as I can understand, a huge (huge) number of people would be cool with civil unions.

You go to the court for the civil union, you go to the church for the thing with the dress and the people yelling "OAP-A" and breaking dishes and whatnot.

The problem is that there is a number of people who want gay marriage who scream that "separate but equal" is morally wrong and is no solution and then people start comparing being black to being gay and we've done that.

There is also a number of people who oppose gay marriage who scream that civil unions are just the nose of the camel and today they'll be having civil unions in the court house and ceremonies in the Unitarian Church... but tomorrow they'll be suing the local Southern Baptist Church for discrimination. Worse than that, people who go to the court house and the unitarians will be calling themselves... MARRIED! And then other people will start calling them married! And the next thing you know we'll have people marrying horses or staplers.

We (Colorado) recently had a constitutional amendment thing that said Marriage would be defined as between a man and a woman but it would be possible for any two unmarried people to engage in a contract with each other that would preclude marriage henceforth unless the contract was officially broken and the contract would provide civil protections for any two unmarried people... which meant couples like my friend's spinster aunt and gramma, or any two gay guys, or any two people, really.

It got shot down by the homosexual activists because it defined marriage as between a man and a woman and by the anti-gay marriage folks because it allowed civil unions for siblings.

The one that merely banned gay marriage (on the same ballot) passed with flying colors, however.

I remember being depressed about that.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

needing to be 18 yrs old and currently not currently in a 'civil asset mangement and sharing contract' and you might have something. Like I've said before the only interst the state has in this whole thing is how the assets get split when the 'happy' couple aren't happy with each other any more!

Let 'em fill out the form, watch 'em sign it, collect the fee, stamp it and yell 'NEXT!' Oh Yeah! Make sure you have the forms in 28 different languages so as not to offend anyone!

is not to simply let people not sell X if they don't want to. Then, they just lose the business as people who want X go to the other seller who does sell X, and everybody's happy.

What is wrong with that? Why FORCE someone to sell something? That's ridiculous to me.

--------------------

Small is beautiful.

If there was something like an Amazon.com for presciptions, this would be a moot point for me.

There is not, not yet anyway, and the War On Drugs pretty much means that there never will be.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

The requirement is to have one licensed Pharmacist on duty during business hours!

You've never heard of pharmacy-by-mail?

--
This too shall pass.

It took me 5 seconds to find drugstore.com . It took me 0.5 seconds to realize there are many pharmacies in a city and therefore many pharmacists.

Just admit you are wrong...

--------------------

Small is beautiful.

Holy cow! They sell Yaz and Oxycontin and all sorts of stuff over the web!

This was *NOT* the case when I last looked this up.

Thanks!

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

There you go again. Completely coming unhinged, this time making the argument of a devout statist, because now it suits your obsession with normalizing buggery.

I call it trollish because you go to all that trouble, then wimp out in the last line so nobody can actually hold you accoutnable for the argument you put forward.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

It's the argument that it strikes me as odd to defend the monopoly power of the state to provide a particular service... then to make appeals to "Liberty" when the licensed distributors make reasons that they do not wish to provide the services for which they have monopoly power.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

The solution is just for someone to go to another seller. You incorrect assumption is that ALL licensed distributors are monolithic in their refusal to provide X. If that were the case, then you would have a point that perhaps they should be forced to sell something.

But it's not the case, so you don't have a good point.

--------------------

Small is beautiful.

My problem is when you get to places where there is just the one pharmacy, or when you have to drive 2 hours to get to the other one.

Interestingly enough, this isn't really a problem in the cities that have a Walgreen's and Walmart and Whathaveyou's every 25 feet.

It's only a problem in the places where there's pretty much just the one pharmacy.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

nt

--------------------

Small is beautiful.

I've no problem with this JoP or that JoP saying "we don't serve your kind" based upon their own personal religious preferences.

My problem would come when there would be a disparate impact upon any given couple based upon these preferences.

For example, if there was only one JoP who was willing to provide this service for homosexual couples and he was backlogged for weeks while other JoPs had empty offices and two folks who happened to be different genders showed up and were able to walk in, yell "I Do!", sign the paper, and get out of there in 2 minutes... while the gay couples had to walk past the nigh-empty offices of several JoPs to be told "come back next week, maybe we'll be able to schedule you then".

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Are you for legislating against hate speech that has a "disparate impact upon any given couple"?

--------------------

Small is beautiful.

The court can say whatever it wants.

I don't mind separate but equal so long as the separate actually is equal.

If it's not equal, that's the problem.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

If you give somebody a slab of bacon, you aren't condoning its use. But pronouncing somebody married, when you believe they aren't, is being forced to lie.

.

well-said. You are exactly right. If your delicate morals are too bruised by the notion of 2 individuals in love spending their lives in happiness, then perhaps you should find a profession that doesn't require you provide them with marriage licenses.

it's not about denying people marriage licenses. It's about officiating. Nobody's complaining that county employees are being forced to give out licenses, it's the act of actually doing the ceremony.

We're talking about California. There are plenty of misguided churches -- and county employees -- who would be happy to do it. Why force it on somebody who isn't?

.

Whether it's officiating, or handing out licenses.

Are there individuals officiating weddings between interracial couples who, deep down, have a disdain for the couple being married? Sure. It goes against their beliefs? Absolutely. What about an 85 year old rich dude marrying a 21 year old beauty queen. Would the individual officiating possibly have some qualms about it? Perhaps. But they do their job as required by the state.

married, fine. But why should anyone, regardless of job title, be forced to cater to it? Especially when the VOTING majority of the state agreed, and it wasn't in the job description when he took it?

.

Would the majority of the residents of Mississippi or Alabama or Arkansas or many other states have voted to end segregation at the time of Brown v. BOE?

Don't bother responding, we all know the answer.

A primary function of the judiciary is to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority." We are not governed by mob rule in this country.

race ain't the same as sexual orientation. You can pretend it is if you want, but the argument doesn't fly here.

.

how exactly is it different?

But let's set that aside for the moment. Do you think that the Justices that sided with the plaintiffs in Brown v. BOE were activist judges that should have been overruled by the "will of the people" in these states? Should we have left it up to voters in these states to decide to end segregation?

you know as well as I do that this question is potentially irrelevant, depending on whether or not race and sexual orientation are different.

So, back to that then... there is no evidence that, like race, people are born gay. On the contrary, if (as I suspect) you're an evolutionist, and even remotely intellectually honest, you'd have to concede that there's no way a homosexual mutation would have survived the evolutionary process. It's doubtful, from a Darwinist perspective, that such a mutation would even be introduced.

.

Given that homosexuals have apparently been around since recorded history, it should be clear that it is a normal, if relatively rare, variance in the species.

Member, American Conservative Party

was a pretty poorly-argued decision and abortive decisive, as even many Liberals now acknowledge. It hardly did anything except polarize. Segregation was not overthrown until . . . wait for it . . . Congress, i.e., the republic's legislative body, stepped in with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act.

_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

You can believe whatever you want...just as long as it is under your bed with the lights out...

The push for gay marriage is NOT about privacy, equality, or tolerance -- it is about imposing a "superior" morality on people by removing the old. This is why supporters of gay marriage will now be the staunchest defenders of "marriage" against those who would dare corrupt and change the definition!

Orthodox Christianity teaches that homosexual sex is "intrinsically disordered," to use the Catholic formulation. The Court implies that this doctrine is mere bigotry. All orthodox Christians are bigots. How tolerant our dear judges are!

To embrace this disordered state into the sacrament of marriage, by the imposition of a gaggle of judges, is to attempt ratify by usurpation something contrary to reason and nature. Cooperation with this can never be rightly made obligatory. To attempt to do so is itself tyranny.

______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Interracial marriage was once upon a time considered to be "against God" and "unnatural".

These same arguments have been made before.

You might find this article illuminating:

http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html

because if you want to talk religion, fine. But civil servants serve ALL religions, ALL races. Their discrimination based upon their beliefs is just that, discrimination.

Member, American Conservative Party

the reasons some civil servants might object to performing same-sex marriages -- one being that their religion forbids it.

_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

It is their job. They are free to quit. They are refusing to perform a legal duty.

Member, American Conservative Party

...the State of California for creating a work environment hostile to their religious beliefs, then? After all, it's one thing to get hired for a job where you're required to engage in tasks contrary to your religion; but quite another to suddenly have your job description changed.

I mean, fair's fair.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I am cool with the justices bringing this suit to court.

It is changing the job description for the JoPs in question and, as such, isn't quite the same thing as a taxi driver signing up to drive taxis and then being shocked, shocked to find that some people take taxis when they are inebriated despite what it says in the Texts about drinking too much.

That said, my sympathy for Public Servants only extends so far and denying services based upon... can we call it a creed? of the couple applying for a marriage service strikes me as techy as well.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Which religion forbids its members from officiating a civil marriage service? I could see a religion forbidding a minister, priest or rabbi from marrying someone in a religious ceremony. I'm Roman Catholic and while I will defend the Church from government intervention should said government try to force the Church to conduct same-sex marriages, but I side with the country governments in this case.

As a civil matter, which is the pervue of judges, marriage is simply a contract. Civil marriage is not a sacrament. That is why Catholic couples marry in churches rather than in courts. Assuming that a couple has a license, the state will recognize marriages performed in churches, but this does not work the other way around. To be sure, I would agree that judges have overstepped their bounds, but it is the legislature, not any church, from whom they are usurping power.

www.republicansenate.org

SIConservative has hit the nail squarely on the head.

If a religious belief allows for 60 year olds marrying 10 year olds or men marrying sofas and women marrying rocking chairs that is completely the business of the religion. Now it may be illegal as determined by a gov't and the couple may not be granted a civil marriage license. But it's still an "acceptable" belief of that religion. The gov't has nothing to say about what a particular religion believes. A person of a particular religious belief may find a particular couple perfectly acceptable to grant a civil license but they can't if it's illegal.

Conversely the state may allow the marriage of homosexuals/lesbians, inter-racial couples or inter-faith couples. This may be against the tenets of a religion. The gov't can't make any particular religion accept a marriage the religion opposes. The gov't can't make a particular house of worship perform a religious ceremony. But the gov't can still grant a marriage license. A person of a particular religion working in the county clerks office may find a particular couple as abhorrent to their religious beliefs but they are still required to grant them a civil license.

As an example, a Catholic priest asks a couple at the ceremony if they will freely accept children and if they will raise them in the Church (waived if the couple is outside child bearing age). If the couple answers "no" the priest will not marry them. This a belief of the Church. It's perfectly acceptable for the Church to not allow the marriage. The same Catholic couple, however, can go to the courthouse and get a marriage license. The clerk is Catholic, knows the couple is using contraception and knows if they have a child intend to raise it as a Hindu. The clerk can't deny them a license because the marriage because the it's contrary to the beliefs of Catholicism.

For all your free and legal concert download needs!
http://www.archive.org/browse.php?collection=etree&field=%2Fmetadata%2Fc...

in order to tout gay marriage on a Republican blog site? Get a life, chief.

.

I found a post I was interested in responding to. I'm sure there will be others. Are opposing viewpoints permitted here?

Thanks for taking the time to check out my stats, though!

check the posting guidelines to get the whole picture. This is a Republican and Conservative site dedicated to promoting Republican and Conservative ideas. It's not that other ideas are unwelcome... you just shouldn't make the mistake of thinking you're the first person to say what you're saying, that we haven't heard it all before, or that you'll get anywhere near changing anyone's mind.

.

I never assumed that. I am simply stating my opinion.

STOP. Respond without thinking about this, and I will close your account - if for no other reason that I myself support same-sex marriage, and you're making us look bad.

Here's your problem: the people that you're trying to 'enlighten' are actually not stupid, and they know quite well that you're trying to use an emotional argument in the place of actual reasoning. As witnessed by your attempt to equate same-sex marriage with interracial marriage: you see, they're all quite aware that racial slavery was a relatively recent aberration in Western civilization, and one created primarily through a combination of technological and economic conditions. Miscegenation laws are even more recent aberrations, and were (rightly) tossed aside as part of our repair work on the parent society. That this is obscured by the fact that many people can't conceive of a mere three or four hundred years being part of 'recent' history isn't their problem.

Now, I happen to think that it's a good idea to regularize and recognize monogamous pair-bondings, even when both people involved are of the same sex. But this is a new thing to contemplate doing. You can find plenty of examples, stretching back to antiquity, of recognized marriages where one of the individuals was clearly of a different race than the other; you have to stretch a lot of points, and talk very fast, to come up with individual examples of recognized same-sex unions. And, again, the people that you're talking to know this full well.

So lose the attitude. You're not accomplishing anything except making yourself feel better at what you think is your opponent's expense, and I'm not actually going to let you do even that here.

Moe Lane

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Every once in a while, I question why I am still here. I consider myself a conservative, but no longer a republican (I had a big problem with the Bankruptcy Reform Act). 90% of the time, I agree with the positions most commonly promoted here.

I come back because, while we sometimes agree, the civility of discourse here makes discussions - even if no one changes their minds! - productive.

Thank you Moe for continuing to be a good example.

Member, American Conservative Party

So, I have been a member here for over 2 years. The imposition of a belief upon another by force of government is tyranny. I get you think that is ok when it is your belief. But, I prefer to wear shorts in the summer. Religious intolerance is as offensive when it comes from Moslems as when it comes from Christians.

Member, American Conservative Party

You're absolutely right. So, why should I be forced to recognize somebody's belief that two men can be married? Why should a civil servant?

Why not just have civil unions and leave the definition of marriage alone?

.

I think this is fine. The court in California ruled however (at least as it has been explained to me) that if you give someone ALL the rights of marriage but refrain from calling it marriage, then that is discrimination.

I prefer civil unions for EVERYONE and churches and faiths can bestow marriage/sanction on anyone or on no one, according to their faiths.

Member, American Conservative Party

as to the first, I think the ruling is bogus, and a little silly. It is the definition of judicial activism.

.

to say to someone:

Thank goodness the courts are protecting minorities; you're in the minority; go to hell.

________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Who is in the minority? Individuals who are too unprofessional to set aside their personal prejudices and fears in order to do their job as required by the state?

Do you assume that characterizing people's motivation as based on personal prejudice and fear somehow gives you credence? In fact it just demonstrates your own intolerance.

Intolerant of intolerance? Yeah... I confess. It's true. I think the notion that two loving adults should be precluded from living their lives in happiness with equal rights by someone else's notion of morality is pretty idiotic.

It's fairly simple, really... if you don't want to spend your life married to a person of the same sex, then don't.

I mean, who are we to say the pig doesn't consent, or that their love isn't real? Who are we to call it unnatural? Right?

.

I was wondering when this argument was going to pop up.

If you can't differentiate between two consenting adults who want to live their lives together and a farm animal, then i'm sorry to say there isn't much hope for you.

where women can and do marry trees.

But why are you so bigoted so as to require that the married couple be two human adults who have given consent?

A Man has a right to marry his stapler! This is just like making blacks sit in the back of the bus! Woman's Sufferage!

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I imagine you know this from experience?

At a rate of 6,000 earmarks per spending bill, Speaker Pelosi is selling America's future to the special intrest groups.

Men are just animals, aren't they? Who are you to come between a man and his pig? Bigot!

.

your particular user name.

If you can't differentiate between a man and a woman then I am sorry to say there isn't much hope for you.

marry every other member and then refuse to testify against their 600 or so spouses under oath?

At a rate of 6,000 earmarks per spending bill, Speaker Pelosi is selling America's future to the special intrest groups.

A, B, and C want to marry each other

A marries B, and subsequently B also marries C while A and C are not married

A marries B (with A and B being brother and sister)

A marries B (with A and B being brother and brother)

A marries B (with A being the adult child of B)

A marries B - Z (with A being an advocate for illegal immigratns and B-Z being illegal immigrants)

The notion that "2" is a limit that is set somehow in stone is naive. Polygamy has more of a history in human civilzations than gay marriage does.

Are you willing to open that door?

At a rate of 6,000 earmarks per spending bill, Speaker Pelosi is selling America's future to the special intrest groups.

marriage in the context of it's legal status is a privilage, extended by the state to provide a legal social structure for family definitions. It's not a right.

You and the California courts make the same goofy logic leap. That equal means you get access to all the same stuff in the world that anyone else does. Your like kids that wan't life to be "fair"

What you really want is to force you notion of "equal" on everyone else. You want your version of everything to be the "accepted" version. You want to run the state according to your own whims and disregard the concerns/questions/criticisms of everyone esle. In short, you are a bigot.

Let me try this a different way:

This is a republic. The whole point of a republic is that law is written and amended by deliberative assemblies composed of the people's representatives. Courts have no authority to legislation, which is what the California Court has done here.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have a solemn obligation to carry their innovation into law by republican means; not by usurpation by the courts.

Surely you can envision situations where court usurpation would earn your displeasure.

________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

The role of the judiciary is also to ensure that laws passed by the legislative branch are constitutional and fair.

Let me ask a simple question: Do you think that the Supreme Court was correct in its Brown vs. BOE ruling, or do you think it should have been left up to the citizens (or legislature) of Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi and other states to end segregation? Do you think the bigots screaming "judicial activism" were correct?

morally correct, in that segregation was a wicked system, but legally on pretty weak ground. More importantly, I think that it is evidence of the republican character of America that segregation could only be defeated by the compromise and deliberation of a legislative body.

_______________
i>And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

I appreciate you answering that question. Most folks who are opposed to gay marriage sorta dance around the issue. At least you are consistent in your views on the role of the judiciary.

but I will give up trying

I believe I did (see below).

But to summarize: I don't believe that there is any likelihood for acceptance of gay marriage to lead to a sudden rush of brothers and sisters wishing to marry, or a sudden escalation in polygamous relationships, so I believe the issue is moot.

I personally find the notion of siblings marrying as revolting, but I would want to hear the arguments as to why it should be illegal vs. legal.

The bottom line, we'll debate that issue when (and if) it ever arises.

Unofficial polygamy is on the rise in the western world due to immigration. In the UK, for the purposes of welfare benefits, polygamous relationships are recognized.

You are opening a door without considering all of the traffic that will go through it.

Very persuasive. I'm sure you would rather spend time arguing about marrying a stapler.

There is never a rush until there is a rush.

The slipper slope does not appear until it appears.

Can you think even one move in advance?

We have to have some practicality here. If you want to talk about slippery slopes, why not consider marriage in itself as the starting point? If marriage between one man and one woman did not exist and no special govt. rights were given, then gays wouldn't want to be married, nor would polygamists.

I'd also like to see the link about how polygamy is becoming a huge problem in the UK. Are we equating a few isolated cases with the millions of Americans in loving same-sex relationships that simply want some legal rights?

Maybe there is a line to be drawn somewhere, and maybe the line is that marriage is permissible between 2 consenting adults, period. Will there be those who argue that? No doubt. And if that ever becomes a pressing issue we can debate it. For the sake of argument, what's so bad about a polygamous relationship?

But the reality is that there is not a huge groundswell of polygamists coming out of the woodwork fighting for legal marriage, nor is there ever likely to be while any of us are alive.

have marriage? because you are attempting to berate people who find marriage to be between a man and a woman...which of course begs the question of WHY YOU must have that! because it's more than those millions (3-5 percent) you quote who don't want it called a marriage.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

i would be perfectly happy with civil union.

Constitutional, yes. It is NOT the role of the judiciary to give 2 craps about 'fair'.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

The courts are not here to protect you from being offended.

Member, American Conservative Party

Some ideas are minority ideas because they are STUPID IDEAS.

What you call social progress, we call a judicial mullahcracy. IF that's progress, then you can have it.

And trust me - yes, this is only the beginning of a long, protracted war, where Americans take back America from the judges and the socialists.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

Good luck with that!

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

As Bob Dylan liked to say, "The times, they are a'changing"

Stupid ideas are not illegal. Just because YOU consider an idea stupid, does not mean that government can force that idea from the marketplace.

I happen to think drinking alcohol is stupid. Once, a majority thought the same way and got government to force that liberty from the marketplace. We had a grand ole time with that.

Liberty is not just the right to pursue good ideas, but stupid ones too.

Member, American Conservative Party

Let's not whip out the Race Card so that people who object to changing the word Marriage to include something it does not can be compared to racist bigots.

It is an old and deflated argument.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Oh? Deflated by whom?

We can plug in women's right to vote, if you prefer. Or any civil right, for that matter. History repeats itself over and over again, as we've seen.

It's a fundamental question: Why should two loving, consenting adults be refused the right to enter into marriage? Is there something more holy or sanctimonious about a drunken straight couple who gets married in Vegas after a 2 hour hook-up, as compared to a long-term relationship between two men or two women?

Government is supposed to be free from the shackles of religion. What reason other than religious belief is there to prohibit same-sex marriage? None.

.

but maybe I want to marry my sister. Don't deny me that right just because the bible says its immoral.

as well as marriages between a parent and an adult child

I just want the right to marry my red swingline stapler.

Do you have ANY idea how hard it was to find out who stole my stapler?

and I swear... if they make me move one more time....

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

And we all see you walking with a stapler in a bag.

What if my children say "Hey, I want a stapler"?

You are infringing on my right to raise my children how I should be able to.

This is why we need to close down the office supply store in the mall.

(The preceeding has been paid for by Birdmojo's Downtown Office Supplies)

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Hey, if you want to marry your children to staplers, go for it.

Nothing stops a ceremony.

Just don't expect or demand that it have legal status akin to one man and one woman.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I'm just posting to laugh at the Office Space references.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

I'm glad someone caught that. I was beginning to think that I was alone in my knowledge/love of office space.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

For example 1 guy can have kids with X number of women and is totally accepted, but marry em accually love and take responsibility and you go to jail and are a really bad person.

Child support is a requirement, and the person is legally responsible to provide said support.

Responsibility for children does not legally equate to marriage of the mother.

You want to go start a legalize polygamy movement--go right ahead.

Make sure you wear your Obama '08 t-shirt when you march.

Most baby daddys do nada. I have worked with women who have had kids from the same guy kids from others most of em just want the guys out of the picture.

are a problem.

The absence of putting the guys in jail does NOT mean they are totally accepted.

You should use words more precisely

Oh? Deflated by whom?

By people who oppose changing the word Marriage to include something it is not. You see, we are not bigots. Despite your effots to make us out to be so.

We can plug in women's right to vote, if you prefer.

Same problem, Sexual Orientation is not gender.

Or any civil right, for that matter.

You don't have a 'civil right' to marry someone of the same gender. That right doesn't exist. You can't claim "Equal Protection" as no STRAIGHT person is allowed to marry someone of the same gender. The protection is the same.

This is just an issue of changing the word marriage to mean "two entities that want to be together in a special way." . . . which is NOT what marriage is.

It's a fundamental question: Why should two loving, consenting adults be refused the right to enter into marriage?

How bigoted you are, by not extending this to a person and a horse, or a person and a stapler.... or a horse and a stapler... How dare you discriminate in marriage against non-humans or non-living things! Words should mean whatever a person wants it to mean at that moment!

You, of course, don't see the silliness of your argument.

Is there something more holy or sanctimonious about a drunken straight couple who gets married in Vegas after a 2 hour hook-up, as compared to a long-term relationship between two men or two women?

The only argument older than the Race or Gender Card argument is that marriage is already screwed up by straight people, so what more damage could homosexuals do? . . . It is old and shows very poor critical thinking or rationality. The idea that "The brakes are out, don't bother steering" is a poor way to justify homosexual marriage.

Government is supposed to be free from the shackles of religion.

It isn't about religion. It is about the definition, served through history, regardless of religion, of Marriage. While there are a FEW, limited examples of some tiny cultures (which no longer exist) allowing homosexuals to claim marital status, the definition of Marriage has always been one man and one woman.

There is no case to change the definition of marriage to include what it does not. Equal Protection does not apply, "Civil Rights" in terms of Race or Gender does not apply, "Legal Status" does not apply.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

The fundamental problem with your thinking is that you can't accept or understand that 2 men or 2 women might feel the same ties of love and commitment, and the desire to live their lives in peace and happiness, as a man and a woman.

If you understood that, you wouldn't be comparing the devotion between 2 individuals to having sexual relations with a child or inanimate object.

You note that straight men cannot marry members of the same sex, so where is the discrimination?

Straight men are presumably sexually attracted to women, so it's an absurd argument to make. Gay men should only have the option to spend the rest of their lives with someone for whom they feel no connection or attraction?

And what does it matter to you? Why do you care so much about the happiness of others? Are folks really so small and scared that the idea of 2 individuals living their lives in happiness with equal protection under the law somehow threatens them?

I don't get it.

then why not be happy with civil unions?

.

I would have no problem with that.

To me, marriage is a religious ceremony. If a particular religion forbids marriage, fine. That's entirely their prerogative.

However, in the eyes of the government, and as it pertains to rights associated with "marriage" - i.e. visitation in hospitals, inheritance, tax benefits, etc - then there should be equality between a "marriage" between a man and a woman, and a "civil union" between two members of the same sex.

But the court didn't ask my opinion.

implied very strongly that your moderation here is mere bigotry. I hope you realize this.

_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

There are some who feel very strongly that "Civil Union" is appropriate, and others that maintain only "marriage" will suffice. All of this is a very tricky issue, and very emotional obviously.

I don't know that I would characterize the justices views as you have, but I won't claim to be an expert on the exact wording of the California ruling.

Personally, I view "marriage" as simply a word. To me, it's the rights that are important. The fundamental benefits that come with govt. recognition of marriage.

do you ever actually address comments posed to you?

what exactly did I not answer?

Do you support allowing a brother to marry a sister?

Do you support allowing an adult child to marry a parent?

It's a good question and one i've never given thought to, and I can honestly say I don't know. The notion is alien and, frankly disgusting to me, and yet - why shouldn't two consenting adults be able to marry? I really don't know enough about the issue. What is it that prohibits siblings from marrying? Societal norms, or the fear of offspring with congenital defects, perhaps?

I don't know the answer. But I also think it's a moot point. There are millions of gay americans who simply want the same rights as others. Are there millions of brothers and sisters clamoring to get married? I have seen no evidence of such.

That's as honest as i can be - these things are not black and white. But I think some of the "slippery slope" scenarios that folks throw up as an argument against gay marriage are highly unlikely to ever be a serious issue.

I'm not sure that I agree with this statement. Because the majority based it's opinion on California's equal protection clause, a good argument could be made that if the legislature deemed all relationships civil unions rather than marriages such a solution would pass constitutional muster.

The fundamental problem with your thinking is that you can't accept or understand that 2 men or 2 women might feel the same ties of love and commitment, and the desire to live their lives in peace and happiness, as a man and a woman.

So, unless they can have legal status as married, they are unable to feel ties of love and committment? That's an equally silly argument as saying that changing the word Marriage to mean what it does not is somehow related to the civil rights movement of the 60's, ensuring equal rights regardless of race.

If you understood that, you wouldn't be comparing the devotion between 2 individuals to having sexual relations with a child or inanimate object.

Who said anything about sex? We're talking marriage. People don't need marriage to have sex, our sad state of affairs shows that.

Straight men are presumably sexually attracted to women, so it's an absurd argument to make. Gay men should only have the option to spend the rest of their lives with someone for whom they feel no connection or attraction?

So you're saying that a person ought to be able to marry whoever/whatever they have a sexual attraction to? 'Cause I like Maple Trees. No, I mean I REALLY like Maple Trees.....

(Ok, no I don't.)

And what does it matter to you?

Because, as a taxpayer and a voter, I have a right to spout displeasure at the idea of changing the word Marriage to mean what it does not mean so as to appease a small minority of people who want legal status applied to something it was not meant to apply to.

Why do you care so much about the happiness of others?

Not talking about happiness, talking about marriage. You're moving the goalposts and shifting quite a bit. Nothing stops two homosexuals from having a ceremony where they promise to be true to one another for all time in a pledge of lifetime committment.

Are folks really so small and scared that the idea of 2 individuals living their lives in happiness with equal protection under the law somehow threatens them?

Are folks really so small and scared that unless the government sanctions their abnormal (Yes, by definition, homsexuality is abnormal, as the 'norm' is heterosexuality) lifestyle they have no self-worth?
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

The problem is that there are real, fundamental benefits provided by our govt. and society to a couple that is married.

Tell me, do you think that a loving, committed couple that has been together for decades should be treated under the law as if they are simply roommates?

I ask "why do you care" and you responded that you have a right to voice your displeasure about the changing of the definition of "marriage."

Sure you have that right. But it doesn't answer the question:

Why Do You Care? What bothers you about 2 individuals spending their lives together under the bond of marriage? Why should it trouble you that a partner who has lost his loved one might have rights of inheritance and ownership? How does it impact you if a man has the right to visit and make life or death decisions for his partner of decades? Why does it trouble you if two women living together in a committed relationship might have the same tax benefits that a man and a woman do?

Very simple: Why Do You Care? Where is the fear coming from?

will allow incestual marriages and will also lead to a 3 consenting adults test which will then lead to a group of X consenting adults test.

Do you think polygamy should be legal?

I fear polygamy. Do you? Or have you evolved beyond such pedestrian concerns?

I think what you are suggesting is an incredible leap. There are millions of loving, same-sex couples who want nothing more than to be able to live their lives in peace, with the same benefits as others who have committed their lives to each other.

Is there a clamor for incestual marriage or legality of polygamous relationships that i'm not aware of?

I understand the logic of what you are suggesting, but the reality is that those issues will be dealt with if and when they arise.

"...who want nothing more than to be able to live their lives in peace, with the same benefits as others who have committed their lives to each other."

But they do not need the states recognition to do this. Why do they want everyone else forced to recognize this relationship?

How do you know it is love? Why should the government determine this answer?

There was a big deal in the 80's when gay people (99.99% of them men) were being hospitalized in fairly surprising numbers due to what was being called "The Gay Cancer" back then.

There were a number of parents who wished to deny visitation rights to the partners of these hospitalized folks.

These visitation rights were denied the partners in large, large numbers of cases.

Why?

Because the parents of the people in question had a legally recognized relationship. The partners? They were just some guy.

That's why they want "everyone" forced to recognize their relationship.

If I had to guess.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

and the solution (which has been implemented already) is to allow the patient to control the visitation

what about a catastrophic incident, such as a car wreck? What if the injured persons family is homophobic and tries to block the injured person's partner from having access?

The folks with such arrangements might not feel reassured by having it pointed out to them that the legal documents they're signing will provide them with legal rights that are separate, but equal, to marriage?

Or are they just being silly and they should totally understand how everything is different now and the stuff that happened 20 years ago can't happen anymore?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"Or are they just being silly and they should totally understand how everything is different now and the stuff that happened 20 years ago can't happen anymore?"

It is being silly or mistrusting of the law and lawyers and how silly is that?

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

Was the point of that post that it's absurd that people would mistrust the law and lawyers?

Or was the point of the post that only a fool would trust the law and lawyers?

(Personally, I'm a lot closer to the latter position than the former)

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

would be mistrusted by gays what with the judiciary of CA dismissing the legal document on gay marriage that the legislature and the people of CA created....I think they should feel just as distrustful as the rest of us but I think they should just SUCK IT UP as they want the rest of us to do and get a lawyer.

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

the fact that you don't acknowledge that fact is irrelevant.

Social services in the UK recognize polygamous marriages for the purposes of welfare payments.

I know this is not a topic you want to address.

I know you don't "feel" this is likely.

So go ahead, and keep punting.

This is a classic slippery slope problem, and you ignore it--which makes your arguments incredibly UNpersuasive.

Polygamy has a long history in human civilization--unlike gay marriage. If you fail to address the issue, you are not going to persuade anybody.

If you are not trying to persuade, then what are you trying to do.

You can no go back to addressing straw man arguments and other arguments that are far easier to address.

is gaining this legal recognition in the West when most predominantly Muslim states forbid it.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

don't fool yourself.

Kind of like Saudi Arabia outlawing slavery.

and that is not a liberal Muslim population.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

years. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded there and is based there. That organization is the grandfather of AQ and just about every other Jihad group.

The Egyption government is far more liberal than the population.

The real test for "moderation" is to see what percentage of the population is not Muslim.

There used to be a lot of Coptic Christians in Egypt--but they are gone now.

the practice of female circumcision in Egypt, which is more of a north African thing than anything Islamic, and it's also true the Islamic Brotherhood uses prostitutes for fundraising. I guess they justify it with the "15-minute marriage" concept.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

"Is there a clamor for incestual marriage or legality of polygamous relationships that i'm not aware of?"

Yes there is a clamor for both (just not as loud). The recent events with the LDS splinter group in Texas should show you one of the many groups who are asking for legalized polygamy. There are also cases of close relatives who wish to marry, but are prevented from doing so under current law.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I think most would reject the comparison between the cults that we've seen in the news lately and a loving committed relationship between two consenting adults.

I also think that this issue is largely brought up simply by those who are opposed to gay marriage for other more personal reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with polygamy or incest.

Let's face it: not all, but most opponents of gay marriage are opposed to it because of their personal prejudice and dislike of homosexuals, period. There is still a great deal of homophobia in this country, as there is a great deal of racism, and other fear.

I think most would reject the comparison between the cults that we've seen in the news lately and a loving committed relationship between two consenting adults.

You're on the side saying that we ought to change the definition of marriage because of how homosexual people feel about one another. Why then are you here saying that the way that polygamists feel about one another is not valid?

Why are we bigots, but you are enlightened? We just draw the same line in different places.

I also think that this issue is largely brought up simply by those who are opposed to gay marriage for other more personal reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with polygamy or incest.

Yes, for me anyway, they are all trying to change the definition of the word marriage. THINK all you want about me, it doesn't change who I am.

Let's face it: not all, but most opponents of gay marriage are opposed to it because of their personal prejudice and dislike of homosexuals, period.

That's rather arrogant of you to suggest. Perhaps your fear and hatred of those opposed to homosexual marriage has led to such bigoted beliefs about those who oppose it.

There is still a great deal of homophobia in this country, as there is a great deal of racism, and other fear.

Still can't move past comparing sexual orientation to race, eh?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

why not compare sexual orientation and race? And are you denying that there is homophobia alive and well and rampant in this country? Do a google search on gay violence if you doubt it.

I have said in this thread that I do not have a position as to whether or not polygamy should be legal. I don't know what the ramifications of it would be within our society, and even whether or not it's practical to implement. BUT I've also said that it's not a major issue because these cases are extremely isolated and it's not likely to be a major issue in our lifetimes.

As for having the same line in different places - why not put the line at the beginning? Plug in your arguments against polygamy and instead use male/female marriage as a starting point. If one man can marry one woman, why can't he marry two women? Not sure why the slippery slope that folks seem to be afraid of starts with gay marriage. The polygamy issue (such that it is) would exist whether there were gays seeking marriage rights in this country or not.

why not compare sexual orientation and race?

Well, because sexual orientation is NOT a race.

And are you denying that there is homophobia alive and well and rampant in this country? Do a google search on gay violence if you doubt it.

Oh it exists, but that someone doesn't like you means you can claim victim status and compare your problems with that of racial discrimination.... because.... well.... sexual orientation is not a race.

I have said in this thread that I do not have a position as to whether or not polygamy should be legal. I don't know what the ramifications of it would be within our society, and even whether or not it's practical to implement. BUT I've also said that it's not a major issue because these cases are extremely isolated and it's not likely to be a major issue in our lifetimes.

I can think of a couple hundred kids to which it is a VERY major issue right now. And those are just ones we know about. Are you sure you want to hold to your idea there?

As for having the same line in different places - why not put the line at the beginning? Plug in your arguments against polygamy and instead use male/female marriage as a starting point. If one man can marry one woman, why can't he marry two women? Not sure why the slippery slope that folks seem to be afraid of starts with gay marriage. The polygamy issue (such that it is) would exist whether there were gays seeking marriage rights in this country or not

Ahh, but the difference is the definition of marriage. Marriage is one man and one woman. ANY change is what we fight. You can't claim victim status because you're failing in your attempt to force me to view things your way.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Race and sexual orientation are comparable in that the fight for civil rights in both instances have followed similar paths in many aspects.

I've never claimed to be a victim. I simply want the same specific legal rights that are applied to a male and female married couple. There is no logical reason outside of religious belief that would differentiate between a marriage of 2 consenting adults, whether it is same sex or opposite sex.

Yeah, polygamy is not a major issue. I stand by that statement. When we start having millions of people in all corners of the world marching for their rights in polygamy pride parades, please let me know.

and that there is no principled answer.

Polygamy is a major issue. There are millions of people in the world are polygamists. Western governments are already recognizing polygamy for certain purposes.

Yet you refuse to answer.

Telling the newb that he didn't have an answer.

I disagree that there is no principled answer, however.

Wanna hear mine or can we go back to it merely being a case of the newb not knowing anything and we'll be good?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Race is not an orientation, and it is a denigration of the sacrifices of those with/for an immutable characteristic for which they were discriminated against to equate same with people demanding to change the civilizing institution for 5000 years based on desired sex acts.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

and claim that the magic number two is a more stable definition and in no way opens the slippery slope door to polygamy?

But let me be clear: the slope done slipped with same sex "marriage". Changing the subject to polygamy diverts attention from the disaster of gay marriage.

My head won't be turned.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

that polygamy be allowed. In fact there are many societies where it is the norm. Just not here.

As for bringing it up, I was just refuting your bald face claim that "a clamor for incestual marriage or legality of polygamous relationships". Such things are wanted by many groups. They would like the same legal recognition of their loving relationships that traditional heterosexual couples enjoy today.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably
every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Sure, there are folks who want anything and everything under the sun legal. There are probably individuals who'd like pedophilia legal, or violent acts under certain circumstances. The freedom of religion, right?

I fail to see how gay marriage opens the door to any of this any wider than straight marriage does. It's a union between 2 consenting adults of legal age. Gay and Straight marriage have that concept in common.

There are also societal peculiarities and different issues involved w/ the notion of polygamy that might not apply to gay marriage. Saying one is acceptable but the other isn't does not necessarily equate to the different between gay and straight marriage. It's all apples and oranges.

In any event, the reality of the situation is this: legalization of gay marriage is not going to result in every other family on the street being made up of 1 husband and 4 wives. All of us know that is simply not the case.

School children asked not what boy they would like to marry when they grow up, but rather would they like to marry a boy or a girl. Warped fairy tales of two prince lovers.

warping children's minds

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Warping childrens minds? How about gay teens who commit suicide because they are told that what they feel is unnatural, or somehow likened to pedophilia? How about all the absurd guilt and pain fed to them from those who really have no stake in the issue? Is it so horrible for folks to live their lives in peace without trying to impose some archaic notion of morality?

Who is doing the mind warping?

you have repeatedly failed.

Will you deny polygamists the right to live their lives in peace?

How can you rationally expect to persuade people that X is good if you aren't willing to discuss the consequences of X.

There are consequences of prohibiting same sex marriages.

There are consequences to allowing same sex marriages.

You only want to discuss one side, which doesn't make for much of a conversation.

Uh, given that heterosexuality is the norm and standard of nature, homosexuality IS unnatural.

That people take that on to mean that THEY have less value is not a reason to force the majority to deny what is for the sake of making YOU feel better.

What about the christians that go to school and are ridiculed day in and day out over their faith, told that they are not allowed to wear christians shirts to school (Some even suspended in MN for wearing "Straight Pride" Shirts in response to the school's Gay Pride parade)?

Or do gay teen's emotions only matter to you because they are gay?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I believe that wearing a "Straight Pride" t-shirt would be akin to wearing a "White Power" shirt to school. Would that be acceptable, as well?

I don't need to feel better about myself. I'm perfectly fine, thanks. But the rate of teen suicide is much higher among gays. Homosexuality is innate. It doesn't change. Oh, there may be a few who go through Exodus Ministries and all that who can find happiness in a heterosexual relationship, and if that's the case more power to 'em. But realistically if you're gay, you're gay. Having schools pretend that it doesn't exist accomplishes nothing except adding to the isolation, guilt and fear that many gay youth experience.

I don't see how portraying a loving gay relationship in school is somehow "brainwashing" kids into becoming gay. You are what you are.

I believe that wearing a "Straight Pride" t-shirt would be akin to wearing a "White Power" shirt to school. Would that be acceptable, as well?

So being proud of being gay is just personal expression, and that's good.... but being proud of being straight is akin to White Supremacy groups?

First off, you're (once again) comparing sexual orientation to race. Secondly, why is it good for one side to have pride in their sexual orientation, but bad for the other side to?

But the rate of teen suicide is much higher among gays.

Uh, not really. You just have a MUCH smaller pool to draw from, so each one counts as a higher percentage.

Having schools pretend that it doesn't exist accomplishes nothing except adding to the isolation, guilt and fear that many gay youth experience.

You're friggen kidding right? Schools pretend it doesn't exist? Schools have Gay Pride Parades and suspend students for even saying "You're gay!" Have you been paying attention to schools over the last dozen years?

Do you have ANY clue what happens? Or are you so distorted as to believe that our public education system discriminates against homosexuals?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

.

You still haven't answered the question.

On what basis will you (or will you not) prohibit polygamy?

I know you prefer to argue about straw men, like marrying staplers or saying that it will "not going to result in every other family . . ."

Are you admitting that Polygamy will become legal?
If not, on what basis will you prevent consenting adults from getting married?

Will you ever actually address the principle and come out with a position?

I've answered it over and over again: I don't know, and in any event it's not relevent to this argument.

If polygamy rights ever becomes a pressing issue facing this country, and studies are done to see what the impact would be, then I would consider how i'd feel about it.

Pass law X even though it will logically result in outcome Y

Its called the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

Its a law that liberals never acknowledge, and always break.

Should we go through the litany of examples of government action resulting in unintended and desirable consequences?

There are polygamists immigrating to this country every day. What is your plan to deal with a rule of marriage based on "consenting adults are free to define their relationships as marriage"

You don't know because you refuse to think about.

i refuse to think about space aliens invading and demanding marriage rights too.

You say there are polygmaists immigrating to this country every day. What is your factual basis for that statement?

If you can seriously envision legions and legions of polygamists marching in the streets of NYC and demanding marriage, then I really don't know what to tell you but reiterate that it's highly highly highly unlikely.

If and when that day comes, we can discuss it. Who knows, maybe there will be persuasive arguments as to why it SHOULD be legal (or illegal.) I don't know what those arguments might be, but I do know this: stubbornly stating marriage is between a man and a woman, period, will not suffice.

Marriage in the US is currently defined as one man and one woman who are of legal age and not closely related being bound together in a relationship. I assume you can at least agree that this is the traditional definition in our country?

What proponents of gay marriage, or polygamous marriage or incestual marriage are ALL proposing is changing this definition. Frankly ALL of the arguments that you use to support gay marriage can be used by the other groups. They just want to change a different part of the definition.

The gay marriage people want it changed to two people.

The polygamy people want to change it to men and women.

The incestuous couples want to remove the bit about not being related.

I won't even go into the NAMBLA wants.

I prefer the traditional definition.

It seems everyone has a line that they won't cross when they define marriage. It's just that you have a different line than others.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

OK, let's accept that for the sake of argument.

Which line is reasonable and which is not?

so draw it.

2 consenting adults.

Like marriage between close relatives. 1st cousins, ect.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

You do realize that polygamists and would be polygamists will feel that their civil rights are being violated?

If a child grows up in a household with two unmarried moms, and feels stigmatized, then how would a person growing up in a household with two unmarried moms and a dad feel any less stigmatized?

What is the basis for expanding marriage on the basis of it being between "consenting adults" while maintaining the limitation to 2?

Because the Oracle of West Virginia says so?

I'm not going to argue why polygamy should be legal, or illegal. I've admitted over and over again that I don't know or care about it because it's a moot issue not likely to ever be a prominent problem in this country. It's like saying well, the Satanists want freedom of religion to slaughter goats and bathe in their blood, too. Why shouldn't they have a national holiday!

I think logically one could conclude that there is a huge huge huge leap from the notion of 2 consenting adults being married, and moving that line to 3 or more. That's a much wider gap than changing from man and woman only, to 2 consenting adults.

But if there are persuasive arguments from polygamists that their unions should be legal, then perhaps one day we'll have that debate.

But as it is, we're wasting time going around in circles on an issue that is wholly irrelevent.

And on that note, I've got to head out.

I appreciate the debate, it has been entertaining and mostly civil, which I really appreciate. Hope we have the chance to continue it later on.

Best to all.

at the left side. Much more readable.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Last warning.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I didn't realize that I was exhibiting an attitude. I'm simply stating my opinion in a courteous and straightforward way.

I would suggest that equating a long-term, loving relationship between two adults to having sex with a maple tree or stapler, or with children, would present more of a problem with what would be considered acceptable discourse on a message board.

Hide it better yet.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

that you and others like you cannot accept the fact that same sex couples can NEVER feel the same ties of love and commmitment as a hetrosexual couple can. By basing you argument on a false premise you cannot achieve a logical conclusion!

Using the high divorce rate as indicator of the 'brokenness' of heterosexual matrimony is also a red herring. By making getting married too easy the value of the marriage has gone down. When 'marriage' was primarily a function of your church, your pastor, priest or minister would usually sit the both of you down and have a long serious discussion. If he felt that the two of you were truly ready he would consent to performing the ceremony. If not, he would suggest further counseling. If you consented to the counseling you and you intended would learn if you were truly ready. If you chose not to participate in the counseling you were free to 'shop' around. Many did and the value of marriage was cheapened.

The 'rights' that of the 'Gay Rights' lobby are fighting for are nothing more than what another poster here called 'manila envelope stuff'. This 'stuff' is nothing more than a few pieces of paper that any competent lawyer could draw up, have signed in front of witnesses and properly filed with the state. To nail that statement down beyond a shadow of a doubt, note that any church official performing marriages must also be a 'Justice of the Peace' so that his signature on the 'Marriage License' is recognized by the state when the license is filed.

To be entirely correct 'marriage' is a religious term that has been appropriated by the state to describe a union between a man and a woman where certain rights and priviliges of property ownership and other responsibilities are recognized by the state to exist between the two parties. That is why it is called a marriage contract! If you ascribe to the notion of separation of Church and State the 'state' should not be using a religious term to describe the bundling of legal privileges into a single contract as 'marriage'.

None of the bundle of 'rights' or 'privileges' accorded by the state are prohibited to non married persons. The only difference is that with a marriage the state 'assumes' the rights and privileges are automatically extended from one party to the other. We can state that if one spouse should die intestate the state assumes the other spouse is the inheritor without having a specific document, a will, stating that. If one of the spouses should be hospitalized the other spouse is automatically assumed to have medical power of attorney. Joint ownership? You can incorporate! (Actually better for taxes, no 'marriage penalty!)You can list every 'right' in marriage and find an appropriate legal document to cover it. Again all the state's interest is really 'manila envelope stuff'.

...for the moment, this passage:

The 'rights' that of the 'Gay Rights' lobby are fighting for are nothing more than what another poster here called 'manila envelope stuff'. This 'stuff' is nothing more than a few pieces of paper that any competent lawyer could draw up, have signed in front of witnesses and properly filed with the state.

...suggests that you might not have an issue with something called, say, a "domestic partnership agreement" or "civil union" that reproduced the aforementioned "manila envelope stuff," and did so in a manner comparable in time and effort to the time and effort it takes to acquire a valid marriage license.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I don't play one on TV, but I can assume that a competent attorney could draw up a standard set of legally binding documents and make them available, for a reasonable fee of course, complete with the necessary filings. You don't have to call it anything! Call it 'Asset Partnership' if you want to have a name. That's really the state's only interest in the deal.

The two parties sign, the lawyer signs, two witnesses sign there you go: contract! Nothing requiring state laws or defintions to be changed. Unless someone is trying to contractually agree to something that is illegal a good attorney can draw up the legal documents. You want to have a party, fine and dandy! The whole of 'marriage law' usually comes down to defining what belongs to whom and what to do when one dies or divorce. There is the question of children born within the marriage but that 's another ball of wax! I don't think there will ever be a good resolution for that one. There is the assumed medical power of attorney and others but it still comes down to assumed contractual rights or privileges that exist outside of traditional marriage recognized by the state.

Marriage was originally a religious term. The gov't recognizing that the promises made between two people actually constituted a contractual agreement made provisions to recognize that contract in a legal sense. That only happened when government separated itself from religion. Before that all decisions about marriage were made by the church.

Tracy Coyle alluded to the scenario where one partner has an adopted child and if the couple should decide to split the non-adoptive partner doesn't have visitation rights or any rights at all. I pointed out that even in a heterosexual relationship that is the case so that's a bogus argument. I've never heard of a properly legally written and signed contract being overturned! Have you??

Personally, I feel that these 'bundled' assumptions should be unbundled and that each be afforded as a separate agreement and force everyone to read and understand EVERYTHING. Do away with 'divorce courts' and everything else. The state should have no interest in the emotional aspect of anything. Make the states interest solely a 'assets' interest. What did you agree to and how do we divide things according to your agreements. Prenups for everyone!!!!

Sign here.. and here..and here.. and here, initial here and here..sign here, here and here...initial and date here and here......

"that you and others like you cannot accept the fact that same sex couples can NEVER feel the same ties of love and commmitment as a hetrosexual couple can."

- - That is simply untrue. And how would you profess to know what someone in a same-sex relationship can or can not feel?

How would you know?

I know plenty of gay couples and I know plenty of straight couples. There are many levels of commitment between them all. I've seen breakups and divorce on both sides. Some nastier than others.

There are gay couples who have been in committed, loving relationships for decades, the same as straight couples.

To me, to suggest that somehow gay couples are incapable of the same level of love as a straight couple is absurd on its face. And impossible to quantify, in any event.

How does one go about measuring the levels of "love", lol

"How does one go about measuring the levels of "love", "

My point exactly. Your previous answer made it sound as if you could.

You can't. Thus, I assume you agree with me that it's absurd to assert that a straight couple somehow has more capacity to love than a gay couple.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other. And I don't see what a gay couple's capacity for affection has to do with the sanctity of marriage.

Because as I said above, folks comparing a loving relationship with sex with a child or a tree or a toy seem unable to comprehend that same-sex couples can feel the same love, devotion and commitment that they can in a straight relationship.

And I was responding to the poster above who said flat out that the same level of love and commitment is not possible in a gay relationship.

Other than that, you're correct - it's not relevent to the central argument.

Because as I said above, folks comparing a loving relationship with sex with a child or a tree or a toy seem unable to comprehend that same-sex couples can feel the same love, devotion and commitment that they can in a straight relationship.

Yeah, except this isn't about love, devotion and commitment. You can have all three of those without changing the definition of marriage to mean what it does not.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

definitions change all the time. we as a society evolve.

Such evolution comes as a result of the majority's shift. Not as an edict by the minority through government mandate.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

And that shift is happening. Look at the poll numbers regarding gay marriage now compared w/ 2, 5, 10, or 20 years ago. Public opinion is changing.

But sometimes it takes the judiciary to step in and say NO, before that public shift can continue. As in Brown vs. BOE, and segregation. How many more years of segregation would african-americans have had to endure if not for the courage of the judiciary in that case?

And that shift is happening. Look at the poll numbers regarding gay marriage now compared w/ 2, 5, 10, or 20 years ago. Public opinion is changing.

Not really, some states voted down homosexual marriage by a margin of somewhere around 85% to 15%.

That doesn't stop the PR machine though. It also doesn't stop the left from forcing homosexuality taught as a 'normal alternative' to our schoolchildren.

You want to talk about 'forcing beliefs' . . . let's talk about the way our children are taught regarding the morality of homosexuality.

But sometimes it takes the judiciary to step in and say NO, before that public shift can continue. As in Brown vs. BOE, and segregation. How many more years of segregation would african-americans have had to endure if not for the courage of the judiciary in that case?

Brown didn't do anything that wasn't already being done through alot of the country, and really didn't do anything effective, given the Constitutional Amendment that recognized the rights of blacks to vote.

However, yet again, you are compraing sexual orientation to race.

Do you have any other arguments? Preferably original ones?
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Which states were those, and when were those elections held? Alot can change in a short amount of time.

As for the poor youth being told that they don't need to feel guilt and pain for being who they are, then yeah... I'm all for it.

People are who they are. Allowing them to be true to themselves is not "forcing" anything on anyone.

MANY states have had a vote on the homosexual marriage issue, including California.... you do know that, right?

And to think, early on you questioned OUR intelligence...

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

In other words, you don't know which states have voted, nor do you know the margins of the vote.

And where exactly did I question anyone's intelligence?

Oh, yes, I do. And a simple Google Search could get you that information as well.

But you don't want that information as it does not support your case and you do not actually want to know it.

You want to continue to deny any information that is not specifically brought to you on a silver platter, AND you will dismiss any information that does not support your case even if it is brought to you on a silver platter.

People of your reasoning ilk are very common and the process is always the same.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Elsewhere in these comments I posted the situation between my partner and I and our child. I can not, in any legal way, insure the continued access to our child in the event we 'divorce'.

It would appear, and Moe, suggests so with his question below, that you would accept the concept of a civil union that gives to gay couples all the same rights/benefits/privileges as a heterosexual couple? Is this so?

If so, then all this arguing is about a word and it's definition. You just don't want gay couples to call themselves married when everything about their relationship in your estimation is in fact marriage.

It is a silly position, but ok by most gays. Make everyone have civil unions and let marriage be a religious sanction.

Member, American Conservative Party

I can enter into a contract with any other adult. That contract can be public, private or short term, or long term. What gives you or the government the right to interfere with that process?

A societal norm? An overriding government interest?

You can't enter into a contract with a horse, or a stapler, or a child.

If you want to restrict marriage to a class of people, then get government out of the process. Your use of the government to enforce a belief or societal norm is tyranny.

Member, American Conservative Party

You can make a contract with anyone. That's fine. Do so. Draw up the papers, sign them, have lawyers give their signature.

Fine and Dandy.

But we're not talking about a 'contract'

We're talking about changing the definition of Marriage to mean something it does not.

Nothing stops two homosexual people from making up legal papers to cover everything that the legal status of 'married' covers.

However, two men or two women (or two men and a woman, or two women and 5 men, or 2 men and 4 horses' owners, or a tree and a duck), is not marriage.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

No amount of legal documents can replace what the state grants to the holders of a marriage license. I know, I tried and the state refuses to recognize some of those documents even when otherwise valid.

So, a definition is a definition. We change definitions all the time. It is a word.

You fear, or maybe just oppose on principle, the idea that a marriage can be something other than what it has been for a long time.

Marriage, now, is not what it was. A man could not rape his wife in the past. A woman did not have rights to property acquired during the marriage.

Marriage, the definition, is changing. Courts and society are trying to deal with it. Our arguments will not change it.

Allowing gays to marry will not change your marriage. It will not encourage people to adopt a gay lifestyle...it may encourage more people to come out however.

Member, American Conservative Party

So, a definition is a definition. We change definitions all the time. It is a word.

Then why are you fighting so hard to be able to claim the word, if it is just a word?

You don't actually believe that. You know what marriage is and you know the value and sacred nature of the word. That is why you want it. So as to make what is historically abnormal seem normal. It is not just a word and you know it. If you REALLY believe that it was 'just a word' you wouldn't care.

But you do.

You fear, or maybe just oppose on principle, the idea that a marriage can be something other than what it has been for a long time.

All of history. There are some blips of societies allowing homosexuals to be considered the same as heterosexual marriages, according to some (though there are arguments about whether or not that is true.), but those are OUT OF the norm.

There is no reason to do so.

Allowing gays to marry will not change your marriage. It will not encourage people to adopt a gay lifestyle...it may encourage more people to come out however.

I'm not married, but the point is that you want to change the definition of a word to mean what it does not.... by government mandate... in a nation in which state after state votes against your idea.

When confronted with that, those who support homosexual marriage then turn to the courts to force your will by any means possible..

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Then why are you fighting so hard to be able to claim the word, if it is just a word?

I have said it elsewhere, I will say it here again. I don't need a marriage, a marriage certificate, a wedding, or a notice in the Married section of the newspaper. I want the same benefits and privileges the government grants married couples to my partner and I. Call it "gay shut up and suffer" rights, I don't care. Many, maybe a majority, of gays feel the same way.

Member, American Conservative Party

You stated as 'fact':

"the state refuses to recognize some of those documents"

Show me one incident with supporting documentation that the 'state' refused to recognize a legally valid document! A signed document not conforming with legally accepted principles or agreeing to illegal activity has no standing! Just because you signed a paper doesn't make it legal!! If it did lawyer's wouldn't be making much money!

As to definition! The definition of anything is that which is agreed to by the MAJORITY of the people not forced down their throat by a minority of 5 or 6 judges! Judicial fiat is more closely tied to rule by dictatorship and not rule of the people! Laws remain laws until a majority of the people rise up and take charge. The ruling by the Calironia Supremes overturned the will of the people who had made their edsires known by a 2 to 1 margin! The backlash will be worse than anyone has anticipated. What had been gained before is now imperiled!

has refused to enforce a visitation agreement between non-related parties...I will dig for the case. A gay couple signed and had notarized an agreement for visitation and placement of the child of one of the partners. After they broke up, the non-biological parent sought to enforce the agreement and the court refused stating they had no grounds to force a parent to provide placement and visitation to an unrelated third party.

Member, American Conservative Party

So suck it up and sue.

The government said that they have no basic legal right by nature of existance, but the person who does not have visitation has full legal right to sue in civil court for failure of the other to uphold the contract.

There are, once again, plenty of biologically related fathers who do not get to see their kids because a vengeful mother is trying to score more alimony and contests visitation rights to use as a negotiation tool.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

had been of opposite sexes would the ruling have been any different?

Why is your use of the government to impose homosexual beliefs on the rest of us any different?

what does this mean, "impose homosexual beliefs on the rest of us"?

If 2 individuals of the same sex are able to get married and spend their lives together with the same rights and benefits as a straight couple, how does that in any way impact you, or impose "homosexual beliefs" on you?

Nobody is forcing you into a gay marriage. Absolutely nothing about your life will change.

Why are folks so opposed to the happiness and equality of others when it has no impact whatsoever on their own lives?

It's a mystery to me.

Answer my question, and I'll answer yours. You have a bad habit of answering a question with a question. Typical troll behavior.

I asked what you meant by "impose homosexual beliefs on the rest of us." I'm sincere in stating that I really don't know what that means.

That you'll all be forced to listen to Cher and Madonna while going to broadway shows and marching down the streets of San Francisco in rainbow garb?

What beliefs are being imposed on you, exactly?

The California Supreme court has basically ruled that, even though I support civil unions that include all the rights and benefits granted to married couples, I am a bigot because I want marriage to remain a union of one man to one woman. You support this ruling as being fair.

Had the court rules the other way, I assume you would have found that somehow unfair. Why? Do homosexuals have more of a right to define marriage than heterosexuals do? Simple question. Try a simple answer.

The simple answer: no. Homosexuals don't have more of a right to define marriage. But you're asserting heterosexuals DO have more of a right, correct?

Isn't the Judiciary the arbiter of these types of disagreements? You dislike their decision because you don't agree with it. How does a judicial decision equate to homosexuals being able to define marriage?

But what I've asked repeatedly and nobody has answered, I'll ask you... sincerely. Why does it trouble you?

I mean this with all seriousness... why does the idea of my partner and I being able to have the same legal rights as others infuriate so many? It's not all about the name game of "Marriage" vs. "Civil Union." You stated above that you would agree with civil union. So would I. So what are we disagreeing about?

How would me being able to make end-of-life decisions about my partner impact your life in a negative way, even it was called "marriage"? How would me being able to get tax benefits in any way alter your quality of life? These are the type of things I don't understand about opposition to gay marriage.

never takes kindly to be forced to accept the will of a minority of individuals....and make no mistake about it the majority is being forced to do something....these judges are overturning the will of the people...and just because you have a life choice does not make you the arbitor of what the rest of us must choose for our lives....we don't like it when the Religion of Global Warming wants us to change to their way and we don't like it when illegals march in the streets for us to change to their ways....we are angered and repelled by any group who would deign to tell the rest of us what we MUST accept....oh and as Americans living in a FREE country we can still stand up and say NO!

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

"just because you have a life choice does not make you the arbitor of what the rest of us must choose for our lives"

- - - How is my "life choice" in any way impacting what you choose for your life? Legalization of gay marriage will not impact you individually in the slightest.

I understand that the "majority" sometimes doesn't like to be told that it's wrong. That doesn't mean that it isn't, in fact, wrong - - as history has shown us countless times. We don't live in an absolutely direct democracy. We are protected from the tyranny of the majority in this country.

I, and others like myself, who happen to be the majority, value what Marriage is.

As such, we ARE affected by your attempts to change it into something it is not.

I understand that the "majority" sometimes doesn't like to be told that it's wrong.

Wow, that sounds like something John Kerry would say, to explain to us unnuanced folks why we should accept an 80% tax hike.

Are you a lifelong Republican who has always voted Republican but now find yourself at odds because of [talking points spouted by Democrat Party]." ?

You have only recycled the same talking points that every other Homosexual Marriage fan spouts.

"It's a civil right like Racial Equality" argument - check
"Marriage is already screwed up." argument - Check
"Why does what I want to do affect you?" argument - Check
"Changing marriage won't change marriage" argument - Check

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Let me ask you a question about the Majority Rules concept.

I don't know your political persuasion or your approval of Bush and the Iraq War, but let's assume for the sake of argument that you approve of the job he's done, and you support continuing the war along w/ his game plan (whatever that might be.)

His approval rating is hovering around 28-30%. A vast majority of Americans believe that the Iraq war was a mistake and most want to get out soon.

For the sake of argument, let's say we held a referendum and the American People voted 60-40% to impeach Bush and immediately withdraw all of our forces from Iraq.

Would you support that, given the Majority Has Spoken?

I would also like to know how gay marriage would concretely and specifically impact you and your life. I'm still waiting for someone to answer that question.

I don't answer the questions of those who refuse to answer the questions of others.

You can't demand answers of others when you will not give them yourself.

And to ward off your expected reply:

No, I will not point you to each and every question you haven't answered here. Nor will I engage you further.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

How would you be negatively impacted if marriage were between a man and a woman and everyone else got a civil union with equal protections and rights? I don't understand the compulsion to force people to accept as "normal" what they view as abnormal.

I would be fine with that, as I've stated previously.

But as you know, most opponents of gay marriage view civil union as essentially marriage under a different name.

On this we can agree. They are wrong. Homosexual couples must have the opportunity to have their union recognized by the state as legally binding with all protections and privileges of hetersexual unions.

Then we are on the same page.

questions.

I realize that you want to focus on emotion and avoid different arguments, but why should anyone address your questions when you repeatedly punt on clearly stated and repeated questions.

If you actually want to persuade people, provide a basis that allows same sex marriage while preventing legalization of polygamy.

Otherwise, most will say no just to prevent the polygamy.

I realize that you don't actually want to address the logical arguments, and instead want to focus on the emotion, but since this is a legal issue, it requires a legal analysis.

What is the basis for outlawing some consensual relationships between adults but permitting others?

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

I don't know. I'm not an expert on polygamy, and I have no idea why it would negatively impact society. Perhaps there are reasons why it would be impractical to implement as a legal union. Perhaps it SHOULD be legal under certain circumstances.

You state that "most will say no just to prevent the polygamy." Perhaps that is a legitimate reason for some, but for most it's simply a logical argument used up to try and throw a roadblock in the way of gay marriage. Or are you telling me that all these folks against gay marriage are REALLY concerned about polygamy? Come on, now. let's not be disingenuous.

There needs to be an aspect of practicality to the argument, here.

Let's take your argument to the logical conclusion. Where is the start of this slippery slope? Why should one man be able to marry one woman, and not be able to marry two women? Why does it have anything to do with gay marriage, per se?

from a specific definition of two-unrelated adults of the opposite sex and of sound mind joining together to participate in the institution of marriage as it has been defined for centuries (e.g. a status with specific requirements that you can bend yourself to satisfy)

TO

looking at marriage as an entitled to which freely consenting adults are entitled (e.g. a status that must itself to satisfy you---e.g. an entitlement)

Once we change marriage from a status with requirements to an entitlement, a whole lot of people will feel entitled and the ACLU will help those expectations become realized

Contrary to your assertions and assumptions, there are people waiting to pounce once same sex marriage is legalized

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90857818

http://www.blainerobison.com/concerns/polygamy.htm

There is a wide gap between the notion of 2 consenting adults, and 3 or more individuals.

If you are correct and these folks are waiting and ready to challenge it, then that is another issue which will be debated if and when it happens.

Nope, just a different line drawn

Marriage: One Male and one Female, Unrelated to one another.

Homosexual: Two People, unrelated to one another.

Polygamists: People, unrelated to one another.

Incest: One Male and One Female.

They're all just variations on the same thing: Change the definition of Marriage to something it is not and cry victim until the government forces your way.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I will jump in here: if gays were imposing their beliefs (and I do not agree that is what is happening) on the straight community, then there would be some infringement on your liberties, some restriction on your rights. Making you aware of our presence, being affectionate in public (holding hands, a quick kiss bye at the train), might be offensive to someone, the mere fact it is offensive is not an imposition.

The belief that gays can't be married and using government to prevent such (the denial of legal rights and benefits) IS an imposition, it is a denial of a right, it is an infringement of a liberty.

Member, American Conservative Party

"The belief that gays can't be married and using government to prevent such (the denial of legal rights and benefits) IS an imposition, it is a denial of a right, it is an infringement of a liberty."

My take...

The belief that POLYGAMISTs can't be married and using government to prevent such (the denial of legal rights and benefits) IS an imposition, it is a denial of a right, it is an infringement of a liberty.

What say you?

Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion

to make. You might want me to equate the two (or equate the animal, or incest arguments) but I am done with that.

If you believe I should be denied the right to marry a person of the opposite sex because it might lead to all sorts of terrible and disgusting consequences in some OTHER scenario, fine.

I will understand that for you, the concept of individual rights is subservient to another set of principles you stand for.

Member, American Conservative Party