Will CA fall to bullying?
Nov 12th, 2008 by David Anderson
Marriage started as an institution to bond the sexes. A renegade court tried to change it and in spite of bullies and politically correct mobs, the voters stood strong. Some extremists would like to turn CA into third world mobocracy. The mob leaders form an enemies list and instead of accepting defeat, they target those with a different point of view. They issue threats against the churches. They disparage members. They attempt to pit one group of citizens against another. Hispanics are ignorant. Mormons are called every name in the book and told they had no right to free expression. Evangelicals are bigots. The Catholic Church is disparaged. Blacks are even called the “N” word.
All of these examples come from the left who would teach the rest of us tolerance. I can respect those who disagree with me on issues. I can not respect people who act like third world leftists when they lose an election. I will not give quarter to those who would subvert democracy for their pet issue. I will condemn those actions vigorously. They attempted to use a renegade court and when the people called them on it, they decided come out when it came to the disregard which they hold the rest of us. As I stated earlier in the year, this battle is even beyond the protection of marriage, the method it is being addressed is about the integrity of the Republican form of government.
I just don’t get how you don’t view this as a civil rights issue. If a group of people in Mississippi got a ballot initiative going that said that black people shouldn’t be allowed to marry white people, and it passed, what would you do?
I know what I’d do, I’d scream like hell to every court in the land until the mob rule that is ballot-initiatives was overturned. Just because a majority think that it is OK to deny a civil right, doesn’t mean that it should be denied.
Although I am fearful that if gay men are allowed to marry each other, it will undermine the sanctity of my marriage. How can I possibly control myself? I would HAVE to marry a man, just so that I didn’t have to put down the seat.
The issue should be litigated on 14th Amendment grounds. Equal protection under the law. Gay Americans should have the same rights to partner benefits, inheritance, etc. To me, this is a fundamental issue.
Prop. 8 opponents should get off their kick for the mere term “marriage” and confine their [rightful] fight to 14th Amendment equality.
I guess it is ok with you to knock crosses out of the hands of old ladies. The ends justify the means.
Marriage has never been anything but an institution uniting the sexes to build a family. You can’t deprive people of rights that they don’t have. I will gladly post a discussion of this issue later as we have another inane court in CT, but I would like to focus you on the issue. It is they who are changing marriage unlike your example. I would expect people to behave in a fashion consistent with Democracy. You can’t affect marriages already solemized.
Since you want to make some racial comparison, here is something that didn’t happen when minorities lost the affirmative action vote. What if blacks were so angry about the repeal of affirmative action that they spit on people as they went to predominately white universities, tracked people down, did sit ins at GOP headquarters and called everyone who opposed them bigots or worse? Wat if blacks tried to bully opponents in the election and acted like a third world socialist mob afterwards. What if hispanics went to the streets waving flags and yelling yankees give us ours? What if they had a general strike? How would these people be viewed? Was not 40 years of affirmative action after 100 years of discrimination in CA a stronger case than a few months of a dubiously obtained right? They were given the best chance to make their case and lost. They got 18,000 marriages out of it which will not be affected by the change. Move to MA.
That is not how we behave in America.
Hube, they are not entitled to equal protection unless they are doing something equal. The original intent of the 14th amendment applied to race–sodomy was illegal in every state and the district of Colombia so it would be absurd to try to apply it to gays.
Most courts have already shot down that argument. They have lost in every Federal Court on that issue. That is why they are trying the state level where they lost in all but a few cases. They have a stronger case under state constitutions which apply all civil rights to gays. We do not have that under federal law.
As for they need to get off marriage, if they did no argument would be had. They already had full rights under civil unions in CA and CT. That did not satisfy the opponents. They did not want to build their own institutions. They wanted marriage.
Why should I even bother addressing this ridiculousness?
Because it is fun. You will address it now or on your show so you may as well get it out now. BTW I think you are getting better every week. It doesn’t sound like some liberal screed anymore. It is enjoyable. You have a real talent, Mike.
David. I’m aware of what the 14th Amendment was originally intended for. But look at what it has become. I am also aware of what the term “marriage” means; that’s why I say gays should concentrate on the civil union aspect (which is, let’s face it, “gay marriage”) which would entitle them to what I noted in my previous post.
Why, in your opinion, is that not just, David?
Simple, the gay lifestlye is no benefit to humanity as a whole. It should not have civil benefits like it does. It is inherently unnatural and unequal when it comes to family building.
People have a right to do what they want. Gay’s are my equals and have every right to live as they feel compelled to live. They have a right to build their own institutions and seek general recognition.
They don’t have a right to make me pretend that it is equal to marrying and raising a family.
I don’t like civil unions because I see it as marriage light and a stepping stone to gay marriage. CT, MA, and CA seem to prove that point. If it stopped there, I could live with it. I don’t like that businesses would be pressured to recognize it, but we all do things we don’t like. Gay’s have a right to build their own institutions and if they can get majority support of the public for recognition, then so be it. I have never complained about a legislature enacting civil unions though I would not support it myself–I am apathetic about it. I do object to the courts circumventing the process.
First off, David, gays aren’t “making you” do a damn thing. This is what bugs me about this whole debate. It’s borne out of extreme ignorance from people with minds like yours. I don’t even want to go any further because to do so would be ridiculous.
How does traditional marriage benefit humanity as a whole, aside from adding to the population, David? 50% of marriages end in divorce now anyway — how is that a benefit?
I would think that social conservatives would endorse means by which gays become more monogamous. After all, especially so for gay men, there’d be a lot less worry about AIDS (and I only single out that one b/c it is deadly; any other STD is pretty much the same whether homo or hetero). That, and you’d have two people committed to a loving relationship. For me, that is what Christianity is about — love and compassion.
I’m sorry, David — and I hope you don’t take offense to this — but your argument sounds too much like those against miscenegation. Honestly, taken as a whole, what is the difference aside from actual child-bearing? I am with you on the actual term of “marriage” — I believe that can be rightly reserved for traditional heterosexual couples, and that NO church should be compelled to perform civil unions nor officially recognize them — but seriously. Weren’t religious arguments used to justify miscenegation laws at one time?
Religious arguments can be used to justify anything. The question is are they properly represented. From a Biblical point of view, there is only one race of men (science verifies that fact) and the LORD himself had mixed marriages in his lineage. Those were celebrated not hidden. Moses the law giver married an Ethiopian convert. Abraham married a Canaanite after Sarah died if my memory is correct. I could go Scripture upon scripture and build a strong case. The ones used on the other side clearly added in context that it was an issue of faith. Don’t marry the people of the land because they will draw you from God. When they converted there was no issue.
Let’s get back to basics. So called interracial marriages fulfill every criteria of marriage. Same sex marriages fulfill few of them. That is not a religious argument.
The fact is my friend maybe you could show me any previous comment or where in the original post, I used any religious argument. I have no problem discussing religion, but I don’t tend to use it in public policy discussion because you can’t debate it. You either believe or you don’t. If you claim it as your frame of reference then I will integrate it. I find using religion as the basis of debate with people who do not share that religion just leads to people talking past each other(hence my next post).
Dude, you just wrote an entire post about religion on essentially the same topic.
Ultimately, Matthews have been proved correct in his initial assessment.
David,
Here’s my final word on this. The scary homosexuals are going to win. No doubt about it. They will be granted equal rights at some point. It’s only a matter of time. That’s why I don’t get too deep into this on here. Because, in the end, it’s just ridiculous.
Matthews HAS been proved … sheesh…
Hube, my friend, you need to reread the other post. It made no religious arguments nor was it about religion. It was about my premise that the real issue gays have is with liberal intrusive government not the Christian right. There is no reason the two sides cannot address the real issues from a larger perspective which has general application.
As for this post, it starts from the majority premise and does not seek to argue it. I have already made a strong case in the past. The problem I see in this post is the attack on our Republican form of government by extremists and the willing concurrence by the media. This post has little to do with so-called gay marriage, and everything to do with the fact that the extremists are acting like third world thugs. Don’t miss the point. Our very freedoms and form of government depend on not missing it. http://townhall.com/talkradio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=21&ContentGuid=4c0b69d1-02c0-4c7f-a72d-7a80f336cfcf