Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (stephan)      Join Date: Nov 2002       08-04-2010, 2:02 PM Reply   
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-marriage.html

Decided by a Bush appointed judge no less.
Old     (paulsmith)      Join Date: Mar 2002       08-04-2010, 2:08 PM Reply   
This issue will be decided by one person eventually, I assume. Justice Anthony Kennedy. Let's hope he considers the equal right to get married as important as the equal right to cast a vote for George W. Bush.
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       08-05-2010, 7:49 AM Reply   
Hmmm. A judge from San Fran. strikes down prop 8......
Old     (PictureMeRollin)      Join Date: Apr 2010       08-05-2010, 9:57 AM Reply   
I was so happy to see this news.. There is some irony in the fact that the judge was appointed by G.H. Bush...
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-05-2010, 2:17 PM Reply   
Bigotry does not belong in any constitution.
Old     (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       08-06-2010, 1:26 AM Reply   
The Constitution Does Not Permit Polygamy or Same-Sex Marriage

By Michael J. Gaynor

The San Francisco judge who ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriages is irrational and invoked the California Constitution’s equal protection clause to permit them is guilty of both judicial activism and historical ignorance.

Had he studied the case law on polygamy, he might have developed a greater appreciation for “the sanctity of marriage” and avoided his grievous error.

The United States Supreme Court was unanimous.

The Constitution does not permit polygamy.

So the Court ruled in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145.

In 1879.

George Reynolds had been convicted of bigamy in the then territory of Utah.

The federal statute under which he was convicted stated:

“Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years....”

The trial court declined to instruct the jury that if they found that Reynolds had married in pursuance of and conformity with what he believed at the time to be a religious duty, their verdict should be “not guilty.”

Instead, the trial court instructed that if Reynolds, under the influence of a religious belief that it was right, had “deliberately married a second time, having a first wife living, the want of consciousness of evil intent—the want of understanding on his part that he was committing crime—did not excuse him, but the law inexorably, in such cases, implies criminal intent.”

And added: “I think it not improper, in the discharge of your duties in this case, that you should consider what are to be the consequences to the innocent victims of this delusion. As this contest goes on, they multiply, and there are pure-minded women and there are innocent children,—innocent in a sense even beyond the degree of the innocence of childhood itself. These are to be the sufferers; and as jurors fail to do their duty, and as these cases come up in the Territory, just so do these victims multiply and spread themselves over the lane.”

The jury found Reynolds guilty.

Reynolds was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for a term of two years and fined $500.

The Supreme Court of the Territory affirmed.

And so did the United States Supreme Court.

Unanimously.

Reynolds’ religious belief or duty defense was rejected, even though his sincerity was accepted:

“On the trial, [Reynolds] proved that at the time of his alleged second marriage he was, and for many years before had been, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly called the Mormon Church, and a believer in its doctrines; that it was an accepted doctrine of that church ‘that it was the duty of male members of said church, circumstances permitting, to practise polygamy; . . . that this duty was enjoined by different books which the members of said church believed to be to divine origin, and among others the Holy Bible, and also that the members of the church believed that the practice of polygamy was directly enjoined upon the male members thereof by the Almighty God, in a revelation to Joseph Smith, the founder and prophet of said church; that the failing or refusing to practise polygamy by such male members of said church, when circumstances would admit, would be punished, and that the penalty for such failure and refusal would be damnation in the life to come.’ He also proved ‘that he had received permission from the recognized authorities in said church to enter into polygamous marriage; . . . that Daniel H. Wells, one having authority in said church to perform the marriage ceremony, married the said defendant on or about the time the crime is alleged to have been committed, to some woman by the name of Schofield, and that such marriage ceremony was performed under and pursuant to the doctrines of said church.’”

The Court of course acknowledged that the Constitution prohibits Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion:

“Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned.”

Then the Court explained that the question presented to it was “whether the law...under consideration comes within this prohibition.”

That depended upon what “religion” meant.

WHEN THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED!

The Court noted that the word “religion” is not defined in the Constitution.

And then explained what activist judges should, but don’t, do in deciding constitutional questions:

“We must...ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed.... “

So the Court carefully reviewed the relevant history:

“Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions.

“This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a ‘Memorial and Remonstrance,’ which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated ‘that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,’ was not within the cognizance of civil government. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, ‘for establishing religious freedom,’ drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. In the preamble of this act religious freedom is defined; and after a recital ‘that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,’ it is declared ‘that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.’ In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.
Old     (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       08-06-2010, 1:27 AM Reply   
“In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States. Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff. Works, 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. 1 Jeff. Works, 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three—New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia—included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say: ‘Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,—I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.’ Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.”

Then the Court examined the historical attitude toward polygamy:

“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society. After the establishment of the ecclesiastical courts, and until the time of James I, it was punished through the instrumentality of those tribunals, not merely because ecclesiastical rights had been violated, but because upon the separation of the ecclesiastical courts from the civil the ecclesiastical were supposed to be the most appropriate for the trial of matrimonial causes and offences against the rights By the statute of 1 James I (c. 11), the offence, if committed in England or Wales, was made punishable in the civil courts, and the penalty was death. As this statute was limited in its operation to England and Wales, it was at a very early period re-enacted, generally with some modifications, in all the colonies. In connection with the case we are now considering, it is a significant fact that on the 8th of December, 1788, after the passage of the act establishing religious freedom, and after the convention of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States the declaration in a bill of rights that ‘all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience,’ the legislature of that State substantially enacted the statute of James I., death penalty included, because, as recited in the preamble, ‘it hath been doubted whether bigamy or poligamy be punishable by the laws of this Commonwealth.’ 12 Hening’s Stat. 691. From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity.”

And concluded:

“In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. Professor Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is equally striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion of marriage, just as they were for testamentary causes and the settlement of the estate of Deceased persons.

“In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
Old     (stephan)      Join Date: Nov 2002       08-05-2010, 9:29 AM Reply   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker

Seems like an interesting guy. He's been nominated/appointed by conservative presidents, generally disliked by Democrats, won a lawsuit against a gay group, is described as an "independent-minded conservative", but at the same time is gay.

You hope that he based his decision on the word of law, but it is definitely a unique situation.

Last edited by stephan; 08-05-2010 at 9:31 AM.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       08-06-2010, 1:43 AM Reply   
"By Michael J. GAYnor" - classic!

The sodomy laws are hilarious - almost as hilarious as Leviticus (but not quite). The states also had laws barring interracial marriage and miscegenation, as recently as the late 60s - I suppose Mr. GAYnor would argue that those should not have been repealed either. The founding fathers knew best, knew all, and are not to be questioned. But wait... I guess Mr. GAYnor hasn't been keeping up with the times - his buddies in Texas have removed TJefferson from the list of founding fathers because he wasn't Christian. The appeal to the morality of slaveowners is pretty entertaining.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       08-06-2010, 5:46 AM Reply   
Sodomy is interpreted to mean "any unnatural sexual act or position". So if you are "doing it" in any manner other than the missionary position, you are guilty of sodomy. Is Gaynor supporting Jefferson's stance on castration for being caught with the girl on top or doggy-style?
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       08-06-2010, 6:45 AM Reply   
Jesus, we are all going to get castrated!
Old     (PictureMeRollin)      Join Date: Apr 2010       08-06-2010, 7:27 AM Reply   
holy cut & paste batman!!
Old     (trace)      Join Date: Feb 2002       08-06-2010, 8:02 AM Reply   
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       08-06-2010, 8:05 AM Reply   
Trace, you cropped out the most interesting parts of that photo haha
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       08-06-2010, 8:09 AM Reply   
Old     (PictureMeRollin)      Join Date: Apr 2010       08-06-2010, 8:47 AM Reply   
a couple of excerpts from Vaughn Walker's Prop. 8 ruling:

"The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples."

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians."


I couldn't have said it better myself!
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       08-10-2010, 11:18 AM Reply   
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       08-10-2010, 11:19 AM Reply   
Chris Wallace pwned by Ted Olson (argued for Bush in Bush v. Gore)
Old     (paulsmith)      Join Date: Mar 2002       08-10-2010, 11:30 AM Reply   
Pwned is an understatement. I feel sorry for anyone that listens to that and yet still can't understand why gays must be allowed to marry.
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-10-2010, 11:51 AM Reply   
That was impressive. Ted Olsen looks like a mental giant compared to Chris Wallace.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       08-10-2010, 8:00 PM Reply   
Paul, many people like to interpret the Constitution to have it to read what their political or religious affiliation supports. If that doesn't work, they start slinging the Bible and "what the forefathers would have done" argument at you.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-10-2010, 10:19 PM Reply   
The Bush administration was opposed to same-sex marriages but not same-sex unions because, by definition, marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, civil unions were created to provide the same legal rights as marriage because when dealing with the court system, every term must be clearly defined so, to me, that is where the misunderstanding started..
Old     (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       08-11-2010, 7:33 AM Reply   
Who gives a rat's ass??? The excuse of "Well then they are gonna start teaching it in schools to our kids..." is just as stupid as caring what someone else does or calls their relationship.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       08-11-2010, 9:58 PM Reply   
...
Attached Images
 
Old     (liquidmx)      Join Date: Jun 2005       08-12-2010, 8:45 AM Reply   
I thought we already voted on this? Since when is the will of the people less important than 1 person's take on the situation? IMHO this very thing is at the heart of our country's problems. We vote on things and then it doesnt even matter because it simply gets overturned by a judge. Where is the incentive to vote if it doesn't matter?
Old     (paulsmith)      Join Date: Mar 2002       08-12-2010, 8:48 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidmx View Post
I thought we already voted on this? Since when is the will of the people less important than 1 person's take on the situation? IMHO this very thing is at the heart of our country's problems. We vote on things and then it doesnt even matter because it simply gets overturned by a judge. Where is the incentive to vote if it doesn't matter?
I have been waiting for someone to show up to feel sorry for, and there he is! Did you not bother to listen to Ted Olson or did you just not get it? That's an honest question.

You can't vote to treat people differently when it comes to a fundamental right like the right to marry. The US Constitution prohibits it. You can vote on anything else you like, but not on things that are already prohibited by the Constitution. The Constitution has this crazy idea in it that people ought to be treated equally when it comes to fundamental rights.
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-12-2010, 9:39 AM Reply   
Even if it were 99% of the people, it should be overturned because it's bigotry.

Yet, in this case, it was a 52/48 decision so it was not even much of a majority.

Its a case of "tyranny of the rural"...
Attached Images
 

Last edited by diamonddad; 08-12-2010 at 9:39 AM. Reason: typo
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       08-12-2010, 9:35 AM Reply   
"Since when is the will of the people less important than 1 person's take on the situation? IMHO this very thing is at the heart of our country's problems. We vote on things and then it doesnt even matter because it simply gets overturned by a judge. Where is the incentive to vote if it doesn't matter?"

Like Olson mentioned, if we left civil rights to the "will of the people", African Americans would still be required to sit in the back of the bus and to drink out of a different water fountain. Hell, we would probably still have slaves if that was left to the will of the people.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-12-2010, 2:04 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Hell, we would probably still have slaves if that was left to the will of the people.
General Sherman changed their will.
Old     (iridelow1998)      Join Date: Jun 2006       08-12-2010, 9:40 AM Reply   
Paul couldn't have said it better. I've been having intimate discussions with my in-laws about the exact same thing. It would be the same thing to put it to a vote to see if women, black people or short people could marry. The Constitution prohibits discrimination and thats the bottom line. Whether we agree with the particular issue or not we don't have the right to take away the rights of another American citizen.
Old     (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       08-12-2010, 10:06 AM Reply   
I think the real problem started when government decided to integrate a religious institution into the laws and tax code and call it by the same name, marriage. At the time, the church probably thought, "Kick ass, the government is legitimizing one of our sacraments!" Of course, the church never anticipated the government changing their version of marriage to include something that the church doesn't necessarily condone. Now you've got the church's definition of marriage and the government's definition of marriage going in different directions and the church is upset because they feel the government is tainting a word that they used first and of which they feel they have ownership. Kind of falls under the "be careful what you wish for" category!

We could have avoided all of this if the government had slapped its own name on "marriage" when they first decided to make it a legal entity. For example, if they had called it "unionated," we'd all be getting legally "unionated" and, if we so desire, "married" as well in the church of our choice. Let's face it, if someone tells you they're married, you don't know if that means they are married in the eyes of the state, the church or both. It's a very confusing term. To help with the confusion, I would even suggest we go further and come up with a third word to represent those that are both legally "unionated" and "married." I'm just throwing this out the, but I wouldn't mind being "marinated."
Old     (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       08-12-2010, 10:07 AM Reply   
Gay people have the right o get married just like you and me. They are not being treated different. They can choose to get married just like you or I. If my life style is such that I don't want to get married, I have the right to not get married and if want then I can. Now you can argue they have no choice to be gay or not, that is a different question. Their rights are not violated. The government has a need to support relationships that can lead to stable house holds and 2.1 children being born from those relationships to keep a stable population of workers. That is the civil contract portion. That is the only thing the government should be into marriage about. Beyond that, there is the religious aspect that the government should have no business in and the tax code should not support.

Besides, why should Olson be listened too. He is just a crazy right wing George Bush supporter right? Since you guys on the left labeled him as the devil, I have removed him from my good column.

M-Dizzle is correct though. Again the people of California voted for something and the courts have used to overturn the will of the people. Just like the illegal immigrant prop that over 75% voted for was overturned by the courts. Imagin that. Our courts forcing the citizens of one country to financially support the people of another country to the tune of 7 to 9 billion a year even though the state in that country is going broke.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       08-12-2010, 11:11 AM Reply   
Dave, you're totally right - "separation of church and state" was to protect the church as much as it was the state. The framers had seen first hand what happened to state-sanctioned religion. Of course, there are numerous Christian churches as well as sects of other religions that unconditionally condone gay marriage and perform such unions without issue, so it's not like the state and religion are diametrically opposed on this issue - the religious attack comes specifically from certain sects, most notably the LDS church.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       08-12-2010, 11:35 AM Reply   
"M-Dizzle is correct though. Again the people of California voted for something and the courts have used to overturn the will of the people."

This is an absurd argument. If we always went with "the will of the people", there is a good chance that women or blacks would not be able to vote. Prop. 8 relies totally on religious views and ignores the rights of American citizens.

To argue that same-sex marriages is going to reduce the work force is just asinine.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       08-12-2010, 11:56 AM Reply   
In this case, Olson has been at the center in so many ways. Disdained by many conservatives for arguing for gay marriage, some openly calling his decision as an act of pure ego or even treason.

Indeed, conservative legal analyst Ed Whelan told me, "It really is a betrayal of everything Ted Olson has purported to stand for in his legal career in terms of constitutional principles."

But if you listen to Olson, his constitutional principles are exactly what this case -- and his decision to take it on -- is all about.

"The Constitution trumps everything," he told me. "The Constitution provides that equal protection of the laws shall be guaranteed to all citizens."

Never mind that more than 40 states have voted against gay marriage or that a majority of the American public doesn't support it. That was the case, he says, with a ban on interracial marriage struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court more than 40 years ago.

"Civil rights battles are won by fighting for civil rights. ... We're representing real people, who are being deprived of their constitutional rights, and we tell them to wait? For what? For how long?"

It's interesting, in a way, because opposition to gay marriage increasingly looks like it cuts along a generational divide.

One recent study showed that 58 percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 support gay marriage, while only 22 percent of those 65 and older feel the same way. So if the issue will gradually resolve itself, some say, why take it to court now?

"Our choice is yes we will go to court to fight for you because your constitutional rights are being ignored. ..." Olson told me. "Or we could tell [gay couples] why don't you wait for years, why don't you wait for another generation?"

Even some pro-gay marriage groups were skeptical at first, worried that Olson and Boies were setting the cause up for failure. Still other legal scholars say that the two super-lawyers are driven by ego and relish that one last shot at arguing an historic case before the court. Both men cringe at that.

And what about the charge that the two lawyers figure they can game the high court -- even a conservative one?

Ah, says Olson. "We're not taking for granted any votes on the Supreme Court. We have so much respect for the judges that are hearing this case and the justices of the Supreme Court that will hear this case, none of whom have made up their minds."

Is he sure? "Yes," he smiles. "They have not heard the arguments."
Old     (iridelow1998)      Join Date: Jun 2006       08-12-2010, 12:22 PM Reply   
"M-Dizzle is correct though. Again the people of California voted for something and the courts have used to overturn the will of the people."

Neither you, I or anyone else have the right to take away another citizens rights because we don't believe they should have them. I'm not sure what people don't understand about that.
Old     (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       08-12-2010, 12:23 PM Reply   
Jeremy, again your ability to read for comprehension escapes you. I did not say it would lead to less work force. I said the only reason the state/ government should be into marriage is only to provide an incentive to have your 2.1 children and provide laws that should help raising those children in a stable environment. That is the only reason for marriage under the state.

Your women and blacks argument is quite frankly a slap in the face to civil rights. To hold up ones sexual desires to that of not holding equal footing as humans is wrong, wrong, wrong. Gay people DO have the right to get married. That just don't have the ability to get married to each other, just like you don't have the ability to marry your first cousin. I mean, would you argue that marrying your first cousin or even your sister should be allowed? I am sure that you and your dear family member could have a very loving relationship even though you should not or could not possibly have kids in such an arrangement. And of course that fight would be exactly the same issues as Jim Crow and Women's suffrage.
Old     (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       08-12-2010, 12:24 PM Reply   
Dirt dog. They have the right to marry. That right is not taken away from them.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       08-12-2010, 12:33 PM Reply   
In Roddyworld women beyond child-rearing years shouldn't be allowed to marry.

In other news, the stay is lifted!
Old     (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       08-12-2010, 12:57 PM Reply   
Wes. You can continue to mock people who don't feel as you do but using "RoddyWorld" or "GAYnor" and crap like that makes you look childish.

You see in the grown up world people recognize the government can only pass laws that have broad implications. Most people understand that the government is not very good at micro managing situations and thus pass large encompassing legislation. Why do you think the government is into the marriage business if not to support the ability to have a stable population to pay for all the pay me later programs they dream up?
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       08-12-2010, 1:14 PM Reply   
There, there Rod. In the grown-up world people pay attention to the constitution and don't let their personal religious beliefs or feelings get in the way of the fundamental rights it provides.

You don't want the law micro managing marriage? Good, this latest rulest restores a broad and proper definition of marriage by striking down an unconstitutional proposition which marred constitutional equality. Problem solved.
Old     (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       08-12-2010, 1:41 PM Reply   
No one has had their rights ignored. They have every right to marry as anyone else. Should you have the right to marry your sister. Yes or No?
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       08-12-2010, 2:01 PM Reply   
I know you have trouble with logic Rod, as evidenced by your repeated insistence that heterosexuals who support gay marriage but do not engage in gay sex are hypocrites. But this one is a stretch even for you. I guess understanding long words like hypocrisy and equality is hard.

Great comment from the Glenn Beck blurb you're getting your talking points from:
"I guess a libertarian will be defined from now on as a Republican who wants to smoke dope and screw his sister." lol
Old     (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       08-12-2010, 2:10 PM Reply   
Most people read the text of the constitution in an effort to bend its meaning/intention to suit their agenda. It's easily visible in the firearm debate and now this. The framers had to intend for 'rights' to extend past the confounds of individual morality.
The idea that the majority controls the minority in constitutional matters should scare the bajebus out of everyone who values the constitution; it's always pleasing to be in the majority. I am completely against homosexual behavior and it's unsettling for me to allow the constitution to force me to accept something I'm so passionately against...(emphasis on passionately... and against.) It literally makes me sick to my stomach.
You're either for the constitution as it was written and accept the good with the bad, or you allow uncertainty of individual morality to interpret the meaning. Either way someone's going to get butthurt ( didja see what i did there? :P)
Old     (PictureMeRollin)      Join Date: Apr 2010       08-12-2010, 3:40 PM Reply   
Nobodys forcing you to accept anything! If you hate gayness, that's your business. Leave the homos alone and go about your life and everyone will be happy. If anything Prop 8 forced us to accept a belief that heterosexuals are somehow superior to homosexuals. The way I see it, we're all equal under God's eyes and only God can judge us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barry View Post
Most people read the text of the constitution in an effort to bend its meaning/intention to suit their agenda. It's easily visible in the firearm debate and now this. The framers had to intend for 'rights' to extend past the confounds of individual morality.
The idea that the majority controls the minority in constitutional matters should scare the bajebus out of everyone who values the constitution; it's always pleasing to be in the majority. I am completely against homosexual behavior and it's unsettling for me to allow the constitution to force me to accept something I'm so passionately against...(emphasis on passionately... and against.) It literally makes me sick to my stomach.
You're either for the constitution as it was written and accept the good with the bad, or you allow uncertainty of individual morality to interpret the meaning. Either way someone's going to get butthurt ( didja see what i did there? :P)
Old     (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       08-12-2010, 4:04 PM Reply   
Quote:
Nobodys forcing you to accept anything! If you hate gayness, that's your business. Leave the homos alone and go about your life and everyone will be happy. If anything Prop 8 forced us to accept a belief that heterosexuals are somehow superior to homosexuals. The way I see it, we're all equal under God's eyes and only God can judge us.

Really...!?
Attached Images
 
Old     (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       08-12-2010, 2:11 PM Reply   
I didn't realize that we've solved all of our real problems and are now down to this. Are you gay... No... Then shut up, it doesn't affect you. The sanctity of marriage is already dead so why worry about it. Everyone should be burning calories to keep their marriage together and not give a crap about other peoples marriages. Keep out of my business and I'll keep out of yours. Before anyone gives the slippery slope argument that this will lead to teaching that anal raping your children is ok... shut up, dumb argument, it will never happen. If you look at the population and what young people believe vs what old people believe you can see that as the bigoted old bastards start dying off, the Gay Rights side will win. Its just a matter of time. So instead of blowing your time, money, and effort trying to stop what will arrive anyways work on doing something positive for society or your own family.

The big mystery is why the anti-gay marriage people can't find anything better to do with their time.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       08-12-2010, 2:16 PM Reply   
Plhorn, it's much easier to focus on others' issues than our own. We all do it.

Barry! you crack me up
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-12-2010, 2:50 PM Reply   
The prop 8 narrow victory was a product of OLD people and AFRICAN/LATINO people.
Attached Images
 

Last edited by diamonddad; 08-12-2010 at 2:51 PM. Reason: typo
Old     (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       08-12-2010, 2:25 PM Reply   
I don't listen to Glenn Beck or hardly anyone for that matter. I guess you do since you seem to know what he says all the time.

You ignored my question. Should you be allowed to marry your sister? It is a simple question. It can be a yes or no. Of course I will have a follow up question, but the initial question is easy. You say this is about equality. There has never been an in equality in this matter. Everyone has the right to marry. No one has had that right taken away. Can you show me where the right for any person has been taken away?

The question is about who you can marry. If you say you can't marry your sister, then why not. Is it not the same premise? If you say that you can, then well.. you are sicker than I thought.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       08-12-2010, 2:30 PM Reply   
"Jeremy, again your ability to read for comprehension escapes you. I did not say it would lead to less work force. I said the only reason the state/ government should be into marriage is only to provide an incentive to have your 2.1 children and provide laws that should help raising those children in a stable environment. That is the only reason for marriage under the state."

Oh really? Well you left this little jewel out that is from your first post:

"The government has a need to support relationships that can lead to stable house holds and 2.1 children being born from those relationships to keep a stable population of workers."

"Gay people DO have the right to get married. That just don't have the ability to get married to each other, just like you don't have the ability to marry your first cousin. I mean, would you argue that marrying your first cousin or even your sister should be allowed?"

There you go with that same strawman type of argument. Next thing you will say "Why not make bestiality legal"? It's a stupid comparison.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       08-12-2010, 2:34 PM Reply   
Homosexuality and incest are not in any way, shape, or form; comparable. You sound like one of those televangelists.
Old     (paulsmith)      Join Date: Mar 2002       08-12-2010, 2:37 PM Reply   
Rod, there is a governmental interest in preventing incest. Are you able to figure out what that is?

There is no governmental interest in preventing gays from marrying. Are you able to articulate one without resorting to religious-based argument?
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       08-12-2010, 3:02 PM Reply   
Dane, I'm not following - at least the numbers you posted appear to point to the Latino vote rather than the black vote (double the amount of votes cast and slightly higher percentage of yes votes?). However it would also be interesting to correlate the ethnicity, age, and religion numbers.
Old     (paulsmith)      Join Date: Mar 2002       08-12-2010, 3:02 PM Reply   
If you are looking for people to blame for Prop 8 start with the religious right, specifically the LDS and the money they pumped into our state from Utah, which was mostly used for very unfortunate propaganda (remember "Yes on 8, Save our Schools"?).

Polls before and after Prop 8 show the majority of Californians support gay marriage. The LDS and their propaganda was just enough to tip the scales momentarily in favor of bigotry, unfortunately.
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-12-2010, 3:09 PM Reply   
Yes, I wanted to edit my post to point out that the "OLD/RELIGIOUS/AFRICAN/LATINO" votes were the dominate YES votes.

I am not surprised by the OLD/RELIGIOUS vote while I find the BLACK/LATINO vote curious.
Old     (liquidmx)      Join Date: Jun 2005       08-12-2010, 5:31 PM Reply   
Agreed Barry... if we are talking about the logic of "Constitutional Rights" then I guess gun control should go ahead and be removed immediately! There is a LAUNDRY list of constitutional rights that are continually infringed upon in this country. How is this any different?
Old     (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       08-12-2010, 6:05 PM Reply   
This might be a little off topic and it's not really relevant to which side of the issue you're on, but I find one of the arguments used by some of those in favor of gay marriage to be offensive. I think it's insulting when this issue is compared to discrimination against people born with certain traits (i.e. race, gender, etc.). Maybe I'm just not educated enough on the subject, but to my knowledge science hasn't found a gay gene or anything like that which causes a person to be gay by birthright. Obviously, if that ever happens, it seems like it would be a reasonable comparison. However, if I was African-American and suffered through discrimination based on the color of my skin, I'd be pissed that somebody is comparing my struggle with that of sexual preference.

Obviously, there are going to be people that reply to this and say that people are born gay, but that's not really the point. If that's your belief then you certainly have the right to make that comparison. I just get bugged when people make sexual preference out as being as cut and dry as being black or female or Jewish or something like that. I can see rational arguments on both sides, but no matter where you stand on the subject, don't tell me that it's as cut and dry as race, gender, etc. It's not. There's a lot more gray area.
Old     (paulsmith)      Join Date: Mar 2002       08-12-2010, 6:27 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
However, if I was African-American and suffered through discrimination based on the color of my skin, I'd be pissed that somebody is comparing my struggle with that of sexual preference.
I would like to think most reasonable people who have experienced that kind of suffering are simply more sympathetic toward any kind of suffering, not somehow possessive and jealous in relation to other people's suffering who happen to be experiencing suffering for a different reason.
Old     (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       08-12-2010, 6:30 PM Reply   
Quote:
What person in their right mind would choose to be so different if they had the option of fitting in?
Did you skip high school for some reason?
Old     (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       08-12-2010, 6:31 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulsmith View Post
I would like to think most reasonable people who have experienced that kind of suffering are simply more sympathetic toward any kind of suffering, not somehow possessive and jealous in relation to other people's suffering who happen to be experiencing suffering for a different reason.
Perhaps that is the case and I certainly wouldn't want to try to speak for those people, but that doesn't really change my point about it being apples and oranges.
Old     (iridelow1998)      Join Date: Jun 2006       08-12-2010, 6:23 PM Reply   
David- I don't know if people are born gay or choose to be gay either. I do think that would be a strange decision to consciously make though. I guess since some people make the choice to be fat then it is possible that it is a choice. A few years ago I had a peer who was a lesbian. I was at a buddies wedding recently and she was there and was hardly recognizable. She went from short hair, dickies, t-shirts and hi-top doc martins a few years ago to long hair, tight sexy pants and revealing cleavage a couple of months ago. I was also told that she wasn't gay anymore.

This kind of surprised me because my thoughts have always been like this. What person in their right mind would choose to be so different if they had the option of fitting in? I mean don't get me wrong because I think everyone should be perfectly happy with who they are. You look at some of the homosexuals on tv and think why would they knowingly choose to be treated like that if it were an option? Maybe I too don't understand.
Old     (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       08-12-2010, 6:29 PM Reply   
Quote:
This kind of surprised me because my thoughts have always been like this. What person in their right mind would choose to be so different if they had the option of fitting in?
I see examples of this everywhere, but that's not really the point. It could very well be that people are born gay. I certainly don't know the answer. My point is that it's a pretty meaty gray area and those that don't recognize it as such and prefer to equate with actual concrete physical traits are not only doing their argument a disservice by overstating their case, but they're just not being honest.
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-12-2010, 6:30 PM Reply   
Gay folks have been 5% to 7% of our population forever. They are good people and they are not going away. So, why not afford them equal rights?

I would also bet that the personal struggle of a gay man is much worse than the "racism" struggle of a black man today. The biggest enemy of a black man these days is the black culture with broken familes and attitudes that put down education and trumpet victimization.

Last edited by diamonddad; 08-12-2010 at 6:33 PM. Reason: improved.
Old     (trace)      Join Date: Feb 2002       08-12-2010, 6:53 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonddad View Post
gay folks have been 5% to 7% of our population forever. They are good people and they are not going away. So, why not afford them equal rights?

I would also bet that the personal struggle of a gay man is much worse than the "racism" struggle of a black man today. The biggest enemy of a black man these days is the black culture with broken familes and attitudes that put down education and trumpet victimization.
well said.
Old     (iridelow1998)      Join Date: Jun 2006       08-12-2010, 6:40 PM Reply   
Barry- I actually thought of high school as I was typing. I do hope that now that I'm in my 30's I would make a better decision than I would at 16-17. At least I hope that I would! LOL
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-12-2010, 6:47 PM Reply   
Its probably a combination of "born that way" and "decided to go that way".

I also think men that are gay are more likley "born that way" while women that are gay are commonly "deciding to go that way".
Old     (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       08-12-2010, 6:53 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonddad View Post
I also think men that are gay are more likley "born that way" while women that are gay are commonly "deciding to go that way".
That's interesting. I'm curious as to what brings you to that conclusion?
Old     (dakid)      Join Date: Feb 2001       08-12-2010, 6:56 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
That's interesting. I'm curious as to what brings you to that conclusion?
lesbian pr0n sites make a ton of money
Old     (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       08-12-2010, 7:01 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakid View Post
lesbian pr0n sites make a ton of money
Joe, where you spend your money is not relevant to this discussion!!
Old     (dakid)      Join Date: Feb 2001       08-12-2010, 7:04 PM Reply   
haha! touché!
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-12-2010, 7:22 PM Reply   
All the men that I know that are gay are obviously gay. They all had great great sucess with women but it never did it for them. The women that I know that are gay seem to prefer women because they connect to women on an emotional level more than men. Often, they are bitter towards men.
Old     (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       08-12-2010, 7:29 PM Reply   
"Rod, there is a governmental interest in preventing incest. Are you able to figure out what that is?

There is no governmental interest in preventing gays from marrying. Are you able to articulate one without resorting to religious-based argument? "

Really???? Ah, ok man, whatever you say! What's the point, you have your view and your not going to open your mind to anything different. Someone else has there point and there not going to open their mind to anything different either. But to think there are no public health issues to consider is just assanine!
Old     (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       08-12-2010, 7:38 PM Reply   
There are more governmental concerns with same sex marriage than public health issues and the concerns are not religiously driven....
Old     (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       08-12-2010, 7:42 PM Reply   
At the risk of taking this thread in too many different directions, GD brings up other questions I have. What is the definition of gay? There are people out there that will have sex with a person of the same sex, but will not or could not have a relationship with someone of the same sex. Are these people gay? Does gay mean you like having sex with someone of the same sex or does it require you to be able to have a "relationship" with someone of the same sex? There are two different levels of same-sex interaction and I'm wondering what the general wisdom is on this.
Old     (paulsmith)      Join Date: Mar 2002       08-12-2010, 8:30 PM Reply   
Dave, you only want to have sex with girls (I assume) and never guys so that makes you heterosexual.

If you wanted to have sex with only guys and not girls, that would made you homosexual or "gay."

If you wanted to have sex with both, that makes you bisexual.

"Gay marriage" is what happens when people discover they are in love with someone of the same sex and want to spend the rest of their life with them.

Does that help?
Old     (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       08-12-2010, 9:40 PM Reply   
So if you're "sexually adventurous" and do not discriminate when it comes to who you have sex with, but all of your "relationships" are boy/girl and you would never even consider having a same-sex "relationship," (i.e. you have no interest in gay marriage) that still means you're bisexual? That's interesting. I always thought your relationships, not who you enjoy having sex with, were the main driver of what defines your sexual preference, but I guess I've never really asked anyone before. So you're saying there are "bisexual" people (by your definition) who are only interested in traditional (opposite sex) marriage? I don't want to doubt your knowledge in this area, but that really surprises me.

Last edited by wakeworld; 08-12-2010 at 9:43 PM. Reason: Changed gay to bisexual in two spots since that makes more sense.
Old     (paulsmith)      Join Date: Mar 2002       08-13-2010, 6:14 AM Reply   
Answering Dave....

First sentence: yes, that person is obviously bisexual.

What you describe, like when two dudes love each other but not in a sexual way, is called friendship.

Why are you surprised that a bisexual person would choose a person of the opposite sex for marriage given our society's treatment of gay people? I mean until recently that bisexual person didn't even have any opportunity to marry someone of the same sex.

I don't have any special knowledge here like you imply. The things I'm telling you are known by about 90%+ of the population, I am guessing.
Old     (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       08-13-2010, 7:57 AM Reply   
I don't think I'm explaining myself very well, so let me try another angle. There are people out there that consider themselves straight because they could only have a loving, long-term relationship with a person of the opposite sex. However, these people are also sexually adventurous and enjoy having sex with both men and women. Is this person bisexual or straight? Obviously, by his or her own definition, they are straight, but what is the textbook definition of what this person is.

I guess I'm trying to distinguish between same-sex sex and same-sex love and figure out which one get the gay/straight/bisexual label. Obviously, sexual attraction occurs in many cases where "love" or personality attraction does not occur. Maybe I'm trying to split hairs to much in applying labels. Does this sound like the ramblings of a crazed person to anyone else?
Old     (stephan)      Join Date: Nov 2002       08-13-2010, 9:46 AM Reply   
From Merriam-Websters definition.

http://tiny.cc/7g3m0

"of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward both sexes"


Referencing your original question about choosing to be gay. Dave, how do you know you love/enjoy sexual relations with women? Personally for me, the best answer I can come up with is "I just do". I think its the same for the majority of gays, its just the way they are wired.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:36 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us