Redstate

It's been a while. Nice of you to drop by.

*********************************************************
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.

...then I'm glad he stopped by.

These ballot initiatives are nuts. Can't we just win wars, keep taxes low, and balance the budget? What happened to real conservatism? The moonbats didn't even need the MSM this time.

believes in conserving things. Like marriage.

I'm pro-states rights and am a Libertarian-leaving GOP supporter. Were I in CO, I would vote against this admendment but the fact is that I think this issue should be decided state-by-state. I'm opposed to the proposal to admend the US constitution, but each state can make up their own minds what they want. CN is the only state to vote for Civil Unions without a court order, but I think as time goes on more will join them. Who knows, but each state has the right to choose. I would not agree with the people of CO if they aprove the admendment, but they have every right to do so. Those who support Civil Unions (like me and President Bush) need to do a better job of convincing people, that's all.

And even changing the US Constitution, if dsone this way, IS deciding it on the State by State level...
Rather literally, I might add...

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

First of all, what is taking place in Colorado (and several other states) is an example of states taking care of their own business.

Second, the decision of the people to officially recognize traditional marriage, and to not not recognize same-sex unions, is not an example of govt sticking its nose in the bedroom. Lack of state recognition does not mean that homosexuals cannot live their life as they choose, and with whoever they choose, it just means that they will not receive the endorsement of the state.

Yeah, I'm also unclear how civil unions create an "unfair burden" on small businesses.

That's pretty simple. It's one of those wild cases where if the amendment passes, it will be passed by people who will be un-affected by its passage, though all those who will be affected are likely to vote against it. As a general rule if it hurts those who will be affected by it, I think it's a bad amendment, and should not be passed.

I am glad you are coming out in opposition to the "Don't give zuiko a million dollars a year" proposition. After all, it only affects me and I will probably be the only person voting against it. It is clearly a bad proposition.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Agreed. There should be no rule against giving Zuiko a million dollars.

On second thought, though - there could be some effect on straight people from this amendment too, but I can only think of a positive effect.

I don't know if it's the case with Ted Haggard... but I've known of a number of gay men who conformed to the procrustean bed of "traditional" marriage, as the only legally (and socially) viable option... up to a point. Because, in those who are really gay, it is more difficult than they initially imagine to conform to such an arrangement, they often cheat - wrecking families, bringing home diseases, & hurting their own (straight) spouses, & their own (straight) kids. So social & legal sanction for homosexual families might lighten the burden on them.

As easy as it is to see how this amendment can hurt some people, it's just real hard to imagine how an amendment like this one could possibly *help* anyone, or how anyone could consider it a "victory" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Is that we can focus on a lot of things at the same time. Instead of limiting ourselves to thinking about only 3 or 4 things, we can think about 20 or 30 things at the same time.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

means we can focus on 300m things at once, but doesn't mean we as a nation can coherently accomplish anything, or that our leadership can focus on more than a couple dozen issues.

To get a majority or supermajority in congress on any issue takes something- it takes face time, it takes motivated effective people to make it happen, and even if we had an infinite supply of people like that, it would still make sense to prioritize their work.

In any case, this is beside my point- expanding the power of government like this is bad policy. We've got better things to do.

That while this issue is not in the top 3 or 4 (for me anyway) it certainly makes the top couple dozen. If none of the SoCon issues made the top couple dozen issues, it wouldn't matter what our agenda was anyway, since we would be enjoying permanent minority status.

As for the other argument about expanding the power of government, it is hardly doing that. We aren't talking about giving the government any new powers or expanding any it already has.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

It's not really an expansion of government, as I'm sure zuiko would agree, we've already let government expand out to regulate marriage as it is. These marriage amendments could actually be argued as seeking to restrict the government from offering it's marriage regulatory program to a larger number of people - i.e., a counter-expansion of government.

In other words, I don't think arguing against these amendments on account of them "expanding the government" is a sound position. If anything, with the civil aspect of marriage currently under government control, increasing the number of marriages will tend to require additional government funds and staff time to manage them.

in that case, I'll cease regarding it as an expansion of government and think of it instead as an existing power whose exercise creates secondary and tertiary problems begging resolution. I suggest that the goverment would do well to limit its role in the marriage business to that of being the registrar of who is married, rather than working so hard to define it, reward or constrain those who have it or seek it, etc.

A ship in the harbor is safe
but that is not what ships are built for

...it provides a better environment for raising children.

So how do kids of gay relationships benefit from denying their parents the protections available to straight parents?

The problem with your premise is that it is exactly backwards. The baseline should be that people in the same situation should be treated equally and you should have to explain why you want to discriminate.

for there to be "kids of gay relationships". Really. If that were possible at all then the parents wouldn't be gay.

In the case of children adopted by gay parents they have the same rights available to the children of unmarried heterosexuals.

It's not the same at all. Unmarried straight couples can marry at anytime if they want to protect their children. Gay couples don't have that option (whether it's marriage or civil union).

And since gay couples often adopt kids that are otherwise difficult to place, discrimination against them is particularly wrong.

You are aware they're pretty much a dead letter, right?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

... but I agree with the conservatives that marriage and family are very important for children (and for society). Single parent families are a necessity sometimes, and sometimes the best available option.. but where the option is available to have two caring parents who will work together to sustain a family, it is undesirable to limit children of gay couples to "all the rights of the children of unmarried heterosexuals". Knowing that a child won't have to go to court against his uncle, grandparent or cousin to protect his rights as "next of kin" with his own parent is just one of those social conventions that come with marriage that help make the family more secure in an insecure world.

Bastardy laws are rather beside the point.

A will costs $50 to $300. Many states allow both gay parents to adopt a child; if you live in one that doesn't, and this upsets you, move. Once the child is adopted, there is no need to "go to court against his uncle, grandparent or cousin to protect his rights," any more than a biological child would.

The only way that gay "marriage" "protects" children is to avoid the stain of bastardy. Alpha and omega.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

as a stepfather in a straight marriage myself, it occurs to me that I don't have to jump through legal hoops to take my own stepchild to a doctor, for instance, when my wife is at work. Or to check him out of school. Or to sign his release form for a field trip. I'm sure I could spend a couple thou on a lawyer to secure these rights for me through legal guardianship, but one of the nice things about civil marriage is that I don't have to do that because I married their mother. They know that I can do anything for them that their mother can do - they don't have to wonder whether or not some lawyer or judge did their job right. If I were a gay step-parent, I would expect the same treatment for myself & my kids & I would be right to...

I'm sure I could spend a couple thou on a lawyer to secure these rights for me through legal guardianship

If someone doesn't care enough to write a will or become the legal custodian of their kid because it is too expensive or too much work, they aren't fit to be parents. Once they go through the process, they have every right a biological parent would have. If they can't be bothered, well... as I said.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Yes, if no other options are available, then maybe it is incumbent upon a would-be parent to jump through legal hoops in hopes of securing the same rights a biological parent would have. However, I don't think you can extend that to say that people should have to jump through those legal hoops in order to accomplish same. I don't see you campaigning, for instance, to ban step-parentage through opposite-sex marriage.

And, excuse me, but did I hear you say that if a person can't afford legal assistance in such matters they aren't fit for parenthood? Does that only apply to those who would be step-parents, or does that also apply to biological parents? Should there be an income test for parenthood now?

Finally, no - guardianship does not provide all the same rights as biological parenthood. Adoption does. But, adoption is not always an option. It isn't for me, as the biological father - though he doesn't give two shits for his kids or pay child support for them - won't release his rights as father in order that I can adopt. As such, my choices are guardianship through marriage as step-father or some sort of guardianship approximation accomplished by legal action, that may or may not work.

Yes, if no other options are available, then maybe it is incumbent upon a would-be parent to jump through legal hoops in hopes of securing the same rights a biological parent would have.

It's not just SSM couples. If the other biological parent is still alive, the step-parent does not automatically supersede their custodial rights. If the other biological parent is willing to give up their rights, they'd have to make arrangements by "jumping through legal hoops in hopes of securing" those rights. Sounds remarkably similar to me.

And, excuse me, but did I hear you say that if a person can't afford legal assistance in such matters they aren't fit for parenthood? Does that only apply to those who would be step-parents, or does that also apply to biological parents? Should there be an income test for parenthood now?

Nice straw man, but we aren't talking about biological parenthood, are we? If they are biological parents, they already have rights. If they are aspiring parents (as they would be if they have no parental rights, by definition), they should be able to provide for their kids. This is part of the cost of providing for your kids.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Sorry, I was initially carried away by the talk of "all the same rights" as biological parents... I should have limited discussion to the same rights as opposite-sex step-parents.

If they are aspiring parents (as they would be if they have no parental rights, by definition), they should be able to provide for their kids. This is part of the cost of providing for your kids.

There is no merit to the position that the burden is less onerous because failure to pay it is indicative of an unfit aspiring parent (or step-parent), as your words certainly seemed to imply. To say so would apply equally well to aspiring step parents who were of opposite sex, or even to aspiring biological parents. If inability to pay expensive lawyer fees makes you unfit, then it does so in every situation, not just one.

There is no merit to the judgment that the burden is less onerous because the potential parent who cannot pay it is unfit on the basis of his or her inability to pay it, and resulting inability to provide the family structure needed. A) it is onerous even if the parent "is fit" and does pay because it imposes costs that should be unnecessary and will influence the finances of the entire family, including the child, who could have that money in his or her education savings account if it were not payed out to a lawyer, B) it is not less onerous in its own right, as it denies parenthood to aspiring parents who would otherwise be fit if the burden did not exist; thereby decreasing the likelihood of a child having a family with a fit parent.

So, if horn A is a "straw man" (and your language doesn't make it clear that such is the case), then horn B is right there waiting for you...

We are talking about self-imposed legal costs. I'm sure it can cost a lot more than that or much less than that depending on how much a person is willing to do themselves and what kind of legal advice they want. You can spend hundreds of thousands on a divorce, or you can do it for a couple hundred bucks. The same goes for estate planning. It all depends on your needs and ability to pay.

Besides, your quoted figure of $2000 is nothing when compared to the costs of providing for a child, so I don't see it as some kind of heavy burden. And as I said, the same kind of legal costs would apply to any non-parent who wishes to adopt a child. If the procedure is overly onerous and expensive in a particular state, then the procedure should be reworked so it is not. That is not an argument for redefining marriage.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

They don't need either to "protect their children." They aren't prohibited from drawing up wills (which everyone should have, married or not). And they aren't prohibited from getting joint custody of the children. Now, if you mean "get free stuff from the government just for being married," you may have a point. I don't have much sympathy for that, however.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

directly above your comment. It isn't just about "free stuff" from the government, though child tax credits do sometimes help people pay for a child's expensive rearing and education... if you think of that as "free stuff" - having a break on one's taxes in exchange for providing the service of parenthood.

The tax forms don't care if you are single or married, you still get the child tax credit, deductions for children, deductions for childcare, and you get a special filing status on top of all that, with the best rate tables in the book. All you are missing out on is the stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with kids. Mainly the lower "married" tax tables.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

The tax forms don't care if you are single or married, you still get the child tax credit, deductions for children, deductions for childcare, and you get a special filing status on top of all that, with the best rate tables in the book.

Correction noted.

All you are missing out on is the stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with kids. Mainly the lower "married" tax tables.

Because having lower "married" tax tables has nothing to do with the benefit to society & to kids of being married to one's partner, I suppose.

Because having lower "married" tax tables has nothing to do with the benefit to society & to kids of being married to one's partner, I suppose.

Since it isn't the "married with kids" tax table, it is safe to say that it has nothing to do with having kids. We have separate subsidies for that, that everyone collects on... and they are far juicier than the marriage tax tables.

As far as being a benefit to society goes, how are two people living in the same house more of a benefit to society than two people living in separate houses? That seems like a stretch.

It's really there for two reasons. Most importantly, it buys votes. Married people vote. Secondarily, it is there as a relic of the past when there was usually only one earner in the household, and nobody wanted to force the stay-at-home mom to prepare and file a separate tax return every year for her $350 in income.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Do you have a single whit of evidence that shows kids adopted by gays are "often...difficult to place?" Because I call BS on this "fact".

It isn't discrimination when you don't meet the legal requirements to do something. If I'm blind I can't drive. That isn't discrimination. Just because you want to do something doesn't mean society has to allow it.

I probably can't come up with a statistic for how many gay couples adopt hard to place kids, but I could probably find stats about how many hard to place kids are in "the system" looking for a good home.

That said, it seems like every time I see a story on gay parents adopting, someone has a kid that no one else wanted. Do you deny that that there are hard to place kids that have been adopted by gay couples? And would you agree that they are better off in a home where they are wanted instead of foster care?

it isn't even uncommon for gay people to have children via straight sex. Youth is a time of confusion, and a lot of people couple up in ways that go against their nature in order to fit in. Sometimes, of a couple who has children and later parts ways, it is the gay parent who is interested in and/or most fit for taking care of the child. In other cases, a couple will have children and the gay parent will become widowed or widowered.

And there are other options, like adoption and surrogate parentage.

Why you want to do you want to discriminate against polygamists? Or those in incestuous relationships? Or those who wish to marry their pets? After all, I can see how an old lady might want to leave her pension benefits to her cat. And she certainly might want to pay less in income tax as a result of filing married with the cat. It doesn't hurt the cat any, so where's the problem? Go ahead and explain why you want to discriminate against all those people.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I love when people talk about how civil unions will lead to folks marrying their cats. That really adds so much intelligence to the debate.

So they simply hurl insults instead.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

But if you really can't see the difference between two people committing in the type of relationship that you claim to support -- whatever their sexual orientation -- and people marrying their cats, there's no point in continuing any debate, that's all.

The burden-of-proof-is-always-on-you-no-matter-what-the-issue-at hand-happens-to-be debate? It seems like all the proponents of SSM have the same problem.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

the issue is one of the right of the state to regulate marriage. Either it can or it can't.

If it can, then there is no "equal protection" argument of "discrimination" argumement in favor of homosexual marriage. Marriage then is simply one of a number of activities (drivers licenses, law practice, medical practice, working as a stockbroker, security guard or taxi driver, getting a building permit) where the state has the right to set rules.

If the state can't regulate marriage because it is some kind of "human right" then the state can't regulate it. Period. Quite honestly polygamy and marriage outside accepted degrees of consanguinity makes a lot more sense and have a much longer acceptance by civilization than gay marriage.

If as a society we decide that marriage has no greater function than getting medical insurance from a spouse's employer then I will say I am in favor of cross-species marriage because sheep need medical care, too.

Maybe I'm not following you, but you mean that the government can decide who gets a driver's license without having to worry about equal protection?

try getting one if you are blind. And blind people are covered by ADA.

They can deny it if you've been under psychiatric care. Again, a protected class under ADA.

They can deny require regular testing of vision and hand/eye coordination if you are over a certain age. A flagrant violation of age discrimination laws.

You have to have a social security number.

The key word is "license." Like in "marriage license."

I don't think that the word "license" means that the government doesn't have to follow equal protection. I'm sure that there are exceptions to equal protection, but I don't think that's the same thing as saying that the government can always do what it wants just because it is a "license." I'm not a lawyer -- maybe you are -- but I just don't think that's right.

but the reason it is called a license is because its granting is regulated.

But what does that get us? The governments "right to set regulations" has limitations. I'm saying that the current status to deny marriage (or civil union) based on one's sexual orietation should be subject to the same kind of limitation that says that the government cannot refuse to issue a license to two persons based on race.

Put another way, the only difference between gay folks and you and me is that they will love someone -- in the committed relationship sense -- of the same sex instead of someone of the opposite sex. That's it, unless I'm missing something. That difference should not mean that they get treated differently when it comes to handing out marriage licenses, or civil union licenses, or whatever it is called.

To say otherwise means that you're discriminating against them. I know many on here believe that there are reasons for discriminating in this case, but I haven't seen a reason that makes sense to me.

your belief as described in the first paragraph is wrong. And that is what this amendment is about. Does my philosphy prevail or yours?

The difference is that I'm at least willing to give you the chance to make your case to the voters. Most supporters of homosexual marriage are not willing to give me the chance to make my case.

Put another way, the only difference between gay folks and you and me is that they will love someone -- in the committed relationship sense -- of the same sex instead of someone of the opposite sex.

And the only difference between a frog and an eagle is that one is a frog and the other is an eagle.

To say otherwise means that you're discriminating against them.

No it doesn't. What it means is that not everyone who wants their living arrangement sanctioned by the state has the right for that to happen. Homosexuals in this regard are at no more or no less a disadvantage than the guy who wants to marry his mother, the polygamous group, or any other people who want to live a life style that the state declines to sanction.

The difference between gay and straight is the same as between an eagle and a frog? I have to admit I'm curious if you really mean that.

But it's obvious that this all boils down to the fact that you believe that being gay is a choice and that's just something that we probably can't resolve here. At some point, that view will be as outdated as the idea that women were the "fairer sex" which "justified" all kinds of discrimination against them, but I realize that as a society, we're not there yet. Wait until someone in your family comes out and I bet you'll think about your opinion differently.

there is no similarity between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual one. You can call it what you will, but calling it the same doesn't make it the same.

But it's obvious that this all boils down to the fact that you believe that being gay is a choice and that's just something that we probably can't resolve here

Actually its obvious that you can't support your own arguments and have to attribute beliefs that have not been discussed to others in order to feel good about your inability to make a coherent argument. What we can resolve here is this one point, don't ever pull a cheap, low rent stunt like that again. I'm sure it makes you a freakin genius over at dKos but here it will get you dropkicked.

Wait until someone in your family comes out and I bet you'll think about your opinion differently.

Really? I guess you are just incapable of holding any belief that requires any effort aren't you? I'll bet if someone in your family robbed a bank you'd come out in favor of armed robbery as a human right.

See. Ad hominems can be fun for everyone.

Well, I can't say that I'm following you. I have no idea what I did that you think was a cheap or low rent stunt. And I have no idea how to respond if you think that there is no similarity between gay and straight relationships when I can't see a single difference, other than the obvious one about the sexes involved. So, I'll just leave this to others smarter than me.

And this question is only theoretical, as I know that there is no real analogy to be made with this example (unlike the analogies between gay marriage and polygamy or marriage to animals).

Does The State have the right to regulate marriage between people based upon skin color?

I'm not asking if it *SHOULD* have that right but if it *DOES* have that right? If a State said that "we do not want Inuit people marrying Japanese people", would it be exceeding its power in doing so?

Now, of course, we know that this is a silly comparison, unlike comparing gay marriage to marrying animals or polygamy. I was just asking the question theoretically.

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

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 might have something to say about that.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Was the state exceeding its power? Or was it merely using its power wrongly?

I would argue that the state was exceeding its power, but, then again, that's something I would do, isn't it?

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

the Fourteenth Amendement, sure.

But even in the pre-Loving era, states which prohibited interracial marriage did not invalidate those marriages it criminalized the marriages. So this tired analogy sort of falls flat.

A better question is why do states forbid in all instances, IIRC, marriages between first cousins when until late Victorian era marriages between first cousins was the preferred marriage?

My statement on animals was facetious but what is the objection to polygamy?

I do not believe that The State had any right, whatsoever, to say that a white man could not marry a black woman (or vice versa).

No right whatsoever.

Oh, it had policemen, and judges, and guns, and jails... but it did not have the right to prevent two people from marrying. It had the power to do it... but not the right.

But, then again, my idea of "marriage" is much closer to the "in the eyes of God" definition than "it's a collection of legal protections" definition.

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

I will raise the bar marriage between brother and sister or how about parent and child ? The state regulates marriage to produce a viable next generation of citizens. It is recognized that there are parties to the marriage contract who are not yet in existence but the protection of their rights is vital to the future of society.

There are, apparently, 20 states that allow for first cousin marriage and 6 states that allow it under restricted circumstances. (I got that information here: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm )

The claim that the states forbid, in all instances, first cousin marriage seems to be false.

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

some do, but you still are avoiding the issue. Why can over half the states, then, prohibit or restrict first cousin marriage?

First cousins are more likely to have children that are genetically defective.

The six States that merely restrict marriage between first cousins allow it if the woman has reached the age where she is likely to be barren, or if one of the two is infertile (Maine allows it after the couple receives "genetic counselling", whatever that is). West Virginia allows marriage between first cousins, but not between "double cousins".

Given that it seems to do with genetics, I don't see how this applies to gay marriage.

Childbearing seems to be much less of an issue with gay marriage.

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

if they carry genetic disease like cystic fibrosis or hemophilia which can be passed on to a living offspring.

But even that is not the reason. Were that the case then there would still be widespread prohibition against Down's Syndrome people, or people with a history of Tay Sachs, or those who are living with CF, hemophilia, Huntington's marrying. Because they have a much higher risk of an offspring with a genetic defect than first cousins.

If it's not because of genetic issues?

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

Sex leads to kids, not marriage. You can certainly have either without the other. So how about we come up with a different defense of the restrictions?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

really isn't dispositive of much more than it is your belief.

If your vision of marriage really was "in the eyes of God" then you'd have to address the uncomfortable fact that no major religion allows homosexual marriage and most of the major religions proscribe homosexual behavior. So I think you'd better stick to your "beliefs" as justification.

I think that an argument can be made in earnest that a great deal of the religions on the planet do not accurately reflect it.

One must then act according to one's conscience. Given the number of prohibited things in this religion, or that one, that we as Free Men know to be Human Rights, I'd hesitate to use the conclusions of "major religions" as evidence that "they all agree on this point, therefore..."

There were a lot of things that the major religions agreed on not 1000 years ago that would cause us to cringe today. What will the major religions agree on tomorrow?

Better to act according to the dictates of one's conscience.

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

I think your argument is simply stupid on its face.

To get to:

think that an argument can be made in earnest that a great deal of the religions on the planet do not accurately reflect it.

Then I have to believe that you have sufficient knowledge of God's mind to know that no religion accurately reflect it. Pardon me while I guffaw but this premise is beyond ridiculous.

But we can now cut to the truth:

One must then act according to one's conscience.

In other words, if religion prohibits you from doing something you want to do religion, not you, is in error and you are free to ignore it.

You do grasp the inherent, my gosh I am at a loss for words here as I've already used "stupid" and "ridiculous", nature of this argument, don't you?

Don't get me wrong, I don't care about your religion or your soul but for heaven's sake don't attempt a theological argument in defense of a humanist argument.

There were a lot of things that the major religions agreed on not 1000 years ago that would cause us to cringe today.

I'll be honest here, I don't speak for any other religion, but I think you'd be hard pressed to show where Christianity has actually changed what it believes over the past 1000 years. My sense is you'd have even steeper hill to climb making that claim about Islam.

But I get real skeptical when someone else claims to and their reflection seems cruel. Perhaps they are right. Perhaps I'm a hippy-dippy moral nihilist who thinks that God agrees with me because I'm nice and nice is what God is and all those circular arguments.

But when I see, for example, gay marriage compared to marriage between animals, even in jest, that seems cruel. I do not think that it accurately reflects the mind of God.

Also, I am not claiming that "no religion" accurately reflects the mind of God. I was claiming, and I'm quoting myself here: "a great deal of the religions on the planet do not accurately reflect it."

I stand by that statement, by the way.

"if religion prohibits you from doing something you want to do religion, not you, is in error and you are free to ignore it."

No, not at all. My own personal moral code is, in a nutshell, "You know that hard thing that you don't want to do? That's the right thing to do."

This isn't about what I "want". Far more often than not, what I want to do is sit in the basement and ignore my wife, ignore my friends, ignore my health, and ignore the rest of the world. Dead Rising has a lot of zombies and they aren't going to kill themselves. But I know what I "Ought" to do and what I Ought to do and what I want to do are, 99% of the time, very different things.

Where Christianity changed what it believes... well, for one thing, there's the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment (and the effects of the Reformation on the Catholic Church and Vatican II) and those are just off the top of my head without digging around in the internet or in my copy of the 1912 Everybody's 'Cylopedia. Off the top of my head, doctrine regarding the personal relationship that one can have with God has evolved a great deal in the last 1000 years. Wasn't Aquinas in the 1200's too? Moses Maimonides was his contemporary, right? And right around 1000 we were still in the middle of Islam's Golden Age, where it was still a respectable religion, wasn't it?

There were a lot of good things that happened to, at least, Judaism and Christianity in the last 1000 years. Christianity and Judaism benefitted from those changes. It grew. This is a good thing.

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

But when I see, for example, gay marriage compared to marriage between animals, even in jest, that seems cruel. I do not think that it accurately reflects the mind of God.

Perhaps your personal "God" but in the sense that God is understood by Christians, Jews, and Muslims you would be wrong. It's in all our books, you can look it up.

But I know what I "Ought" to do and what I Ought to do and what I want to do are, 99% of the time, very different things.

What "you" want and ought to do is not what we were discussing. We were discussing your personal Vulcan mind meld with the Almighty.

Where Christianity changed what it believes... well, for one thing, there's the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment (and the effects of the Reformation on the Catholic Church and Vatican II)

This is ridiculous. None of those events changed Christian beliefs or scripture. And I would be really interested in your views on how the Reformation (16th century) had an effect on Vatican II (1965). I think you are confusing religious practices with beliefs. Not very similar things at all.

The attitude of Christians and Jews towards homosexuals seems to be fairly mixed. Southern Baptists seem to be against, Episcopalians seem to be willing to split the church over whether homosexuals can be ordained, and the Unitarian Universalists... well, anything goes there. Judaism has a similar spectrum of responses. The Orthodox have attitudes similar to those found among the Southern Baptists, Conservatives take a deep breath before going on a speech where every other sentence begins with "on the other hand...", and the Reform... well, anything goes there.

If you're talking about the laws given in Leviticus, well... there seem to be a lot of laws in there that have been abandoned and abandoned hard.

As for my "personal mind meld with the Almighty", I act according to the dictates of my conscience. "Here I stand. I can do no other."

Given that I have no "mind meld" with my fellow man, I find it difficult to distinguish between practices and beliefs.

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

The attitude of Christians and Jews towards homosexuals seems to be fairly mixed.

You do see what you are talking about is not beliefs but attitudes. You do understand that Episcopalians being willing to split the Church implies that the disagreement is very serious, right?

Again, go back to the religious texts and see what they say. I can't speak for how people observe their faith, there are a lot of Birdmojo-ists out there.

I find it difficult to distinguish between practices and beliefs.

You don't believe that. You're just trying to make a rhetorical point. You think the Filioque controversy constitutes a difference in belief? Or the fact that I say the Rosary means that my Christianity is different from a Lutherans? Or meatless Fridays are a belief (then explain why meatless Fridays are optional within the Catholic Church, does that mean that those of us who do abstain from meat of Fridays have different beliefs than those who don't)? And why does the Catholic Church, with a chaste and celibate priesthood, recognize the ordination of married Orthodox and Anglican priests?

"Here I stand. I can do no other."

I think it pretty safe to say that Luther would gag at the thought of his statement being used in defense of state sanctioned buggery.

There are beliefs about, say, whether it's okay to eat Lobster. There are Orthodox Jews who explain that it's forbidden. There are Southern Baptists who eat at the Red Lobster after Sunday Service (they tend to be irritated that they have to stand in line, because the Methodists let out 10 minutes early every Sunday and so they get there first).

What do Christians think about whether it's okay to eat Lobster? Would I get an idea from going back to the religious texts?

"Trying to make a rhetorical point"

Would my rhetorical point have been stronger had I said that you will know a tree by its fruit?

"Luther would gag at the thought of his statement being used in defense of state sanctioned buggery". I am not defending "state sactioned buggery". I am defending the idea that consenting adults who commit to each other for a lifetime ought to be left alone and what they do in their bedrooms is between them and not the business of anyone else.

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

A church is not bound by what other churches say; note that despite its proscription in many churches, we've got at least one openly gay archbishop in the anglican church.

Also note that any ordained person may officiate at a marriage; separation of church and state does not permit the state to discriminate based on the beliefs of the church or the ordained person. Thus, it's really not a problem for gay people who want to get married to find an ordained minister willing to marry them.

Of course, this debate doesn't revolve around freedom to be married in the eyes of the church; they've got that already. It revolves around whether or not gay unions should be recognized by the state in the same way straight ones are, and if so/not, why.

If we are to be guided by religion, (and we are) it's important to remember the value of a separation between church and state- it is this separation that provides the space not only for our own worship, but for that of our differently-worshipping neighbors. In a sense, the best thing our state can do for our religious freedoms and values is not to enforce them, but rather to get out of the way so that we might express ourselves in accord with our differing beliefs.

If I had my druthers, the state's only involvement in matrimony (civil or holy) would be to register that the civil union happened and regard it as a civil contract. If the idea of gay people's civil contracts being the same as straight peoples' civil contracts caused you distress, that would be something to deal with outside the avenues of government.

While you know a lot about a lot of things, I think you've overshot here.

I'm not going to bore people with a rundown of equal protection, but you aren't even in the ballpark in terms of stating how the analysis goes. That the state can make certain discriminations based on bona fide functional distinctions - say, not letting blind people drive - doesn't mean that equal protection does not apply and that they could choose to deny driver's licenses to all people of, say, Asian descent. You also seem to confuse the constitutional protected classes with categories set up under various statutory schemes such as the ADA.

Don't feel bad. No one understands current equal protection analysis, because, as the results achieved applying it prove, it makes no sense. It's just that a lawyer would have used the buzzwords more precisely.

I make no comment on your personal position about marrying sheep.

The burden is on those who don't want to change the definition of marriage, so long as you support the change in definition. If you don't support the change in definition, the burden is on the other side. Very convenient.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

These slipery slope arguments are so dumb. I mean next they'll be saying that if we amend the constitution to protect the civil rights of blacks, it will lead to a constitutional right to sodomy. Patently absurd.

...it helps prevent men from running around wild, committing crimes.

I'll be right with you. If we shouldn't be subsidizing marriage in the first place, we don't correct that by subsidizing more kinds of marriage.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

...but we need to be clear about *why*. Married couples are better at raising kids, for instance. I t is in the government's interest to try to see that as many kids as possible are raised in two-parent households.

Also married people take care of each other. If more people took care of each other, the Government wouldn't have to.

We need to focus on the societal benefits of Traditional Marriage as the targets of whatever subsidies get handed out. Saying that we are going to do it "because it's in the Bible" is not a good enough answer.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Truly, the concept that parents who raise children are contributing a net gain to society by producing additional (hopefully) productive tax paying citizens, and that in exchange for this, it is just for the State to subsidize their efforts is probably the best argument I've heard for why government ought to promote procreation by incentivizing it somehow - tax credits, streamlined access to standard legal procedures codified in legislation (as opposed to obtaining a subset via private lawyers), and so forth.

But this potentially justified subsidy should apply equally to anyone raising a child - whether they are an opposite-sex or same-sex partnership, or a single mother, or a single father. It shouldn't matter whether the child is adopted. Only that the primary guardians are capable of fulfilling their role in such a manner that they justly deserve the subsidy.

In this line of reasoning, I think you have to offer up substantial evidence (read: non-anecdotal, sans appeals to tradition) that same-sex parents cannot adequately fulfill this role as well as opposite-sex parents or as well as single mothers and single fathers; otherwise, there's strong rationale for extending at least those benefits and legal procedures available to opposite-sex parents that relate directly to their role as parent/guardian (such as child tax credits) to same-sex parents. There would also seem to be an argument for further extending even those benefits that do not directly relate to the guardianship, insofar as the indirect benefits of, e.g. joint tax filing and spousal insurance coverage can still directly impact the parents ability to provide financially (to the maximum possible, or in other words, to the same extent as opposite-sex couples are able) for the child in their care.

Under the line of reasoning, opposite-sex or same-sex couples who choose not to raise children should not be subsidized or incentivized. Their child-less arrangement implies no willingness (or a lack of capability) to produce a net gain for society in the form of a new citizen. There may well be a good reason for them to partner and work as a unit regardless, but society owes them nothing in return.

Same sex couples already have access to all of these. As a parent, you not only get all the credits and deductions, you also get a special advantageous filing status (head of household).

Now, I really don't think we need a lot of these generous tax incentives, such as the child tax credit, since we already provide free education at the cost of thousands of dollars per year, along with subsidized activities, parks, pools, playgrounds, and child care.

As far as your last point goes... we really do owe married people without children nothing at all. There is no more reason to be subsidizing these couples than there is to be subsidizing ADM, Cargill, and ConAgra. If it were up to me (and I couldn't simply eliminate the income tax), I would just have everyone file their own returns using the single tables. Put the kids on the person's return where it makes the most difference.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Same sex couples already have access to all of these.

I'm not so sure that same-sex parents have access to all of the benefits and other ready-made legal procedures afforded to opposite-sex parents, it total, which directly or indirectly impact their ability to raise a child. Does an adoptive same-sex parent have the benefits regarding avoiding or minimizing estate tax when their partner dies, as a married opposite-sex parent has? This has a rather direct impact on how much money stays within a family unit where a dependant child is being raised. Can same-sex parents with a dependant child who are buying their first home take part in the first-time homeowner program? Unless there's been a change, this program applied only to married individuals and their "spouse". As a program geared to aid families buying their first house, it would be inaccessible to those same-sex parents with a child in there care. etc etc.

It's dated (1997) but I draw these examples from here (PDF). And what I think I'm illustrating is that there are a lot of ancilliary benefits from having a recognized civil marriage (union, partnership) which not only impacts the two married persons, but their entire family including dependant children. In so far as we're interested in subsidizing the activity of raising new citizens, and in the absence of sound evidence that same-sex parents would universally do such a poor job as opposed to opposite-sex couples, how does the State justify subsidizing one set of parents and not the other? I recognize that this is actually an argument to extend some benefits to include single parents as well, and while a single parent wouldn't have a spouse to transfer their assets to in the estate tax example, why should we disallow a single parent with a dependant child from taking advantage of a first time homebuyer program?

If concern for children is the issue, it seems to me there's a strong argument to be made for equivalent recognition and benefits for same-sex parents as you have for opposite-sex parents. Either that, or there needs to be an empirical argument for why homosexual partners and single persons, ought to be denied the priviledge of raising children.

Note that, as has been pointed out prior, homosexuals are currently free to marry an opposite-sex partner and raise children with all the attendant benefits - so it appears to me that the homosexuality of the prospective parent really isn't an issue for people making this point, unless there's an additional case to be made for denying parenting priviledges to all homosexuals, period.

I'm not so sure that same-sex parents have access to all of the benefits and other ready-made legal procedures afforded to opposite-sex parents,

Just look at the tax forms... it is not that complicated. There is no difference between a single gay person with a child and a single straight person with a child. They get all the same tax benefits. Both also pay lower rates than a couple because of their single parent status. When you add in the income (paid at single rate) from the other partner, it is probably close to a wash.

As far as the estate tax goes... that'll probably depend on if the Democrats take the house. Remember, the Republicans repealed that tax to 2010. So it's kind of a non-issue unless the Democrats are in the position to bring it back or refuse to make it permanent. In any case... if they have to worry about estate tax, they can certainly afford to do some serious estate planning to avoid any problems ahead of time. The estate tax is more of a full employment act for accountants and attorneys than a tax.

As far as the HUD program goes... unmarried people also qualify for first time home-buyer assistance. So it would be dishonest to say that a gay couple could not qualify for the program. One of them would have to qualify individually if they wanted to take advantage of this opportunity at free government stuff.

The real issue here is homosexuals who live together, but have no kids. As I've said, those with kids probably come out even anyway with one of them filing as head of household. The ones with no kids get a raw deal on taxes. So do single people. They get a raw deal on SS. So does everybody. That's life with a bloated government.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

if they have to worry about estate tax, they can certainly afford to do some serious estate planning to avoid any problems ahead of time.

Statements like these are really just excuses for the status quo and not a good argument for why we feel it's appropriate to subsidize one set of parents but not the other. Oh, those other parents will find some way around it, they'll be rich enough that it wont matter or, etc etc. I guess we could go through an entire list taken from the linked PDF and you may be able to explain why it's really not that much of a difference or burden in at least some cases. But I don't think it really addresses the crux of the matter. We've apparently, ostensibly for the children, opted to subsidize - through credits, taxes, insurance regulations, boilerplate legislation, and so on - some families with children. But not others. Why?

And why, if we're so eager to point out how homosexuals can avail themselves of "most" of the same arrangements just by working with lawyers to draw up papers, do we then complain about simplifying these matters and letting homosexuals just utilize pre-existing marriage legislation, even under a different name like civil union? Do we feel like we need to feed the lawyers? If the collection of benefits really can be obtained some other way, and no one (well, except perhaps in Virginia) is rushing to stop homosexuals from devising their own contracts, then it stands to reason that the "definition" of marriage that people want to protect isn't really wrapped up in this civil legislation afterall.

And if that's the case, then civil union legislation that provides an identical but differently-named arrangement with the same benefits for families where homosexuals are parenting children seems like reasonable public policy that doesn't alter the definition of "marriage" but justly provides an equal playing field for all families engaged in raising the next generation.

I don't have a huge problem with civil unions if they are implemented by legislatures... I think if that were the focus of the gay lobby had been that all along, they'd have them in at least a dozen states by now. Instead they abandoned civil unions as "not enough" and instead focused on SSM implemented through the courts. So you might want to ask them why they have a problem with civil unions.

The people who would argue against civil unions would probably argue that civil unions still recognize, sanction, and encourage SSM relationships... something many people do not want to do.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

So you might want to ask them why they have a problem with civil unions.

Indeed, I've often wondered this myself. It seems to be a very reasonable compromise. I'm not sure what their fascination with the word "marriage" is all about. I'm sure it feels like a matter of human/civil rights and separate but equal and all of that, but I'd think a step forward into equivalent benefits and simplified legal processes would be a good thing by itself.

I certainly offer to listen to sound and rational arguments on the matter from any member of the "gay lobby" who may be reading!

It's pretty simple, from what I understand. There isn't any grand scheme by some "gay lobby" on this issue. It's tempting to talk about the "gay agenda" as if there are monthly meetings, but it is a myth. Yes, point to any number of gay organizations, but they are just that, a number of organizations.

The idea that legislatures would have taken up civil unions is probably a myth too; I've never heard of any evidence to back it up, but it makes a nice and easy jab at gays, as in "See, you brought this on yourself." Yeah, the nerve of them wanting to be treated equally.

There is still a "gay lobby" just as there is a "union lobby," "gun lobby" or an "environmentalist lobby." There is a special interest group there comprised of a bunch of organizations that have similar agendas for pretty much every issue out there. Did anybody mention a "grand scheme?" Or suggest that everybody is in on it?

The idea that legislatures would have taken up civil unions is probably a myth too

Yea, we aren't going to find out now, are we? It seems pretty likely to me that deep blue states like California, Oregon and New York would've gone for it had the gay lobby not poisoned the well. Now most people don't want to hear about civil unions or SSM. People get ticked about being ruled by judicial overlords who won't take no for an answer. It's not the system of government they signed up for.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

That's another good one. They're "overlords" when they do something you don't like, and they're heroes when they do something you like. The bottom line is that people go to the courts when there does not seem to be another way to get recognition for their issue. Brown v. Board of Education may be the best example. It took the Supreme Court to jumpstart a process that might have taken another 50 years to get off the ground. It's not like things went smoothly after that decision either, but would we be better off without it? I doubt it.

Was some decision somewhere to file a lawsuit to get some state to grant marriage licenses to gay folks a good or bad decision? I don't know; I bet people probably did not expect the kind of reaction it got, but at least it is an issue that is being talked about, and things usually work out in the end, even if it takes a long time. Reading this thread again this morning, I think it's safe to say it's a highly charged issue for people, and I think we're all still talking past each other, but it is probably a necessary first step.

If there are deficiencies in the programs, fine, lets fix them (or better yet, get rid of the programs). Any disadvantage a gay couple is going to run into with federal programs are going to be for childless couples, not for couples with children. We don't punish single parents through government programs. We usually reward them. The "children" stuff is simply a smokescreen to gain sympathy and make it seem like there are "innocent victims" of this "unfair policy."
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Any disadvantage a gay couple is going to run into with federal programs are going to be for childless couples, not for couples with children.

This is only true if federal and state legislation actually provides unmarried homosexual parents with equivalent provisions, benefits, and legal processes as married heterosexual couples with children. I'm not even suggesting they be identical, but they must be equivalent in scope and impact. I assert that federal and state legislation do not provide equivalent benefits and legal processes, and that in fact our society provides one set of families with an inferior set of incentives than another set of families.

The "children" stuff is simply a smokescreen to gain sympathy and make it seem like there are "innocent victims" of this "unfair policy."

I disagree. Under the current circumstance, a child raised by heterosexual married parents will be raised in a family that the government provides greater benefits to than they will provide to a family where homosexual parents raise the same identical child. Same child, different parents, and inferior benefits accrued by only one of family units. Why?

I could rationalize this situation if the government assigned a scale of benefits that ranked families according to some empirical evidence demonstrating which scenarios result in "better" children; for sake of illustration: two hetero parents, 100%; single mom, 80%; single dad, 70%; and so on. But we don't rank family situations this way and apportion benefits accordingly. And if we buy into the idea that the State ought to "pay back" those who provide and care for the next generation, then I don't see any good argument for arbitrarily rewarding one set of families and not the other.

We agree that couples that do not parent children do not factor into this discussion. They have done nothing to justify a subsidy.

This is only true if federal and state legislation actually provides unmarried homosexual parents with equivalent provisions, benefits, and legal processes as married heterosexual couples with children.

Feel free to come up with a concrete example of one. I didn't see any in the PDF you linked to. Got something specific in mind? Until you can actually come up with some of these benefits a homosexual parent doesn't qualify for where a heterosexual parent would (you haven't come up with any so far), none of this means anything. We've already covered taxes (which seems to be the main complaint) and there is no difference there. That is why the children stuff is purely smokescreen. Lots of smoke, and nothing behind it. All that smoke is simply there to provide a more sympathetic case.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

As far as I can tell the Estate Tax hasn't been terminated. I thought permanent repeal failed passage in the Senate. According to this it runs until 2010, is abated for only one year, then reverts back to it's former incarnation. So that still stands as an example.

Social security benefits can be or are denied to children, as in this example. In fact there was apparently a bill introduced to address this specific issue...

Additional examples of benefits found here, including:

Same-sex couples who buy a home together can arrange for a partner to inherit the home, in the event one partner dies. But, unlike married people, the survivor has to pay taxes on the deceased partner's half.
<...>
If a same-sex partner doesn't write up a will, his or her estate doesn't automatically go to the surviving partner, unlike married couples. But even if there is a will, the survivor still must pay taxes on the estate, unlike married couples, and the same applies to 401(k) benefits.
<...>
Unlike married people, same-sex partners don't get to share or inherit their spouse's Social Security benefits, veteran's benefits and workmen's compensation benefits, and they can't sue for wrongful death on behalf of their partner.

As an example of the situation in a state, read the recent New Jersey decision which details a host of benefits not available to a same-sex parent, like:

survivor benefits under New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act, <...> back wages owed to a deceased spouse, <...> tuition assistance for higher education for spouses and children of volunteer firefighters and first-aid responders, <...> The Act provides no comparable presumption of dual parentage to the non-biological parent of a child born to a domestic partner. As a result, domestic partners must rely on costly and time-consuming second parent adoption procedures.

I think there are many differences. But feel free to demonstrate that in every example above, the government grants each parent in a same-sex relationship access to equivalent benefits that each parent in an opposite-sex marriage has.

That is why the children stuff is purely smokescreen. Lots of smoke, and nothing behind it. All that smoke is simply there to provide a more sympathetic case.

Again, I disagree. Sympathy has nothing to do with it, unless you're suggesting that we've granted these benefits to opposite-sex parents because we sympathize for their children, and not because we see importance in providing the same subsidy to all persons engaged in raising the next generation.

flaunting their depravity. If you watch television these days its arguable that they were correct under the theory it would constitute a public nuisance.