This is the second thread. The first thread was getting awfully large.

Sparrow made one mistake; he used the word "troll." A real troll is someone that has no intention of actually debating and just likes to see people get mad. For instance, if I just typed in "All fags go to Hell!" I would be a troll. I disagree with almost everything Norma said, but that doesn't mean she's a troll. She could be someone who genuinely has those opinions and is open to debate. If so, she's not a troll, just someone who has different opinions. MikeC

It is understandable that Sparrow took Norma to be a troll. She'd never posted here before, she made outrageous claims without attempting to back them up (at least not in that first post, which was all he had to go on), and she displayed an attitude that indicated she did not care what anyone else thought about the matter. (And you yourself identified her later post as ad hominem.)

A mackeral is a fish. But we treat it as a duck. But it's not a duck, it's a fish.

Gay unions are marriage. But we treat it as legal unions. But no matter how we try to dress it up, it's still marriage?

Is that your analogy? I'm trying my best to understand it.

Not exactly, but close enough. It was only intended to be a throw-away line.

The difference in race is the geographical location that you were born in and the genetic makeup of you ancestors. (Okay, not exactly Websters Dictionary definitions, but still...) Zarm Rkeeg

No it isn’t, and let me add that race is not accounted for at the genetic level. Biologically, race is literally only skin-deep. Luigi Novi

Although there are no absolute biolgical markers for race as we know it sociologically, and a mutant gene can produce some physical characteristics of a race to which the owner does not belong, in general two white (or black or asian, etc,) parents will not give birth to an apparently black (or asian or white, etc.) child without there having been at least one interracial ancestor from which to inherit the characteristics. So I would be willing to cede the statement to Zarm.

However, there is more than sufficient evidence that, for many people, sexual preference is inborn, and may even have a genetic component, so the argument he builds from this statement falls.

There is one thing in Norma's initial post that got me thinking (although not in the way she meant it to -- assuming she wanted anyone to contemplate her arguments at all). But it is more religious than legal, so I'll ask about it on the RM board.

Her later post was ad hominem, offensive, and unacceptable. Her first post was offensive TO ME, but was not inherently trollish. I think Sparrow was understandable in mistaking Norma for a troll (she may actually be one), but it was a slight "jump-the-gun" to actually call her one, which I have been guilty of before myself. The wisest thing to do would have been to attempt to engage her points and discover if she was actually interested in a real debate (real trolls aren't). I wasn't trying to blame Sparrow or anything, just defend the board from the allegations of being uncivil and not open to debate.

Sidebar: I, being a retard, actually took your analogy at face value the first time. I was like "A mackeral is a duck? I always thought it was a fish." And then I understood. May Ken Jennings strike me down where I stand.

Way to take the initative, Mike!

Now, then, let me say that I should probably put the brakes on throwing around the word "trollish," as my definition seems to be a bit more expansive than everyone else's. As Tom points out, there were some pretty big flags in Norma's first post, and her second post ultimately proved my point, in my opinion.

At the same time, I think it's hard to believe that Norma's post wasn't meant to be offensive in parts. It's pretty naive to think that calling all gay men child molesters won't get people hacked off. Maybe Norma really is that naive, but to me that sort of claim just screams "Troll!"

And Mike is also right in saying that my response to Norma was more of a "baloney" response than a "stifler" response. If you'll notice, I did wish Norma luck (albeit snarkily) in proving some of her accusations, as I'd much rather have her try to do so than just throw a bunch of ill-founded blather around and never follow up (which is what a troll would do).

Right now, in my mind, Norma's a troll. If she shows up and starts to debate some of the responses to her posts, that label will fall away.

While don't you refrain from name calling. It is uncivil and childish. If Norma has had some negative experiences, why doesn't she have the right to express them? It's hard to believe that there are adults posting these things ("you're just a troll"). Even Hannity and O'Reilly invite opposing viewpoint on their shows. They don't respond with a "Well you're a troll". This isn't the first time I've read complaints on these boards about calling people trolls. You should get the message. Everyone is tired of it (calling people trolls). If you can't resist from attacking someone, why don't you take a break from the computer. If anyone in one of my college debating forums would start calling someone a troll, they would be dismissed from the room. Grow up!

1. If Norma has had some negative experiences, does she have the right to express them? Sure! She also has the right to respond to refutations to her rather sweeping statements. She also has the right to have other people criticize and disagree with her statements.

2. The Hannity and O'Reilly arguments are bogus. Does Bill O'Reilly have an open show where people can just walk in and express their opinions? No, he goes out and gets guests that he knows are serious and can present intelligent opinions. With an totally open forum like this, you run the risk of people posting things for the sole purpose of offending people and getting their own personal satisfaction. Those people are called trolls. I am not calling Norma a troll, but NitCentral has most definitely had trolls in the past. It is a real problem on the Internet, and I understand Sparrow and Tom and probably many other veterans' fears of trolls interrupting debate.

3. Sparrow said that RIGHT NOW he thinks Norma is a troll. As I've said, I think he may have jumped the gun a second in actually proclaiming her a troll. I also feel that the word "troll" is bandied around way too much, as it was used frequently to refer to people who present unpopular opinions (like Peter, Matt Pesti, etc., who are not trolls). But I agree with him in saying that she must present at least some sort of response to her statements; making sweeping statements, not engaging in debate, and then making insulting comments is trollish behavior.

Anyway, if she was not a troll, then she should prove it by engaging in some well-mannered debate. I am certain that she will no longer be called or accused of being a troll anytime soon. Calling someone a loser is not going to change that, I assure you.

When Hannity and O'Reilly invite opposing viewpoint on their shows. They don't respond with a "Well you're a troll".

No they just say "you're compleatly wrong" and than turn the guy's mic off so he can't respond. At least O'Reilly does.

So... perhaps we could abandon this discussion of who is and is not a troll, and get back to the legal issue at hand?

Fine by me!

We're Trolls!

Zarm Rkeeg: The difference in race is the geographical location that you were born in and the genetic makeup of you ancestors. (Okay, not exactly Websters Dictionary definitions, but still...)

Luigi Novi: No it isn’t, and let me add that race is not accounted for at the genetic level. Biologically, race is literally only skin-deep.

TomM: Although there are no absolute biolgical markers for race as we know it sociologically, and a mutant gene can produce some physical characteristics of a race to which the owner does not belong, in general two white (or black or asian, etc,) parents will not give birth to an apparently black (or asian or white, etc.) child without there having been at least one interracial ancestor from which to inherit the characteristics. So I would be willing to cede the statement to Zarm.
Luigi Novi: Except that what you describe is not caused by genetics. According to Luca Caalli-Sforza and his colleagues, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza, in The History and Geography of Human Genes, which presents evidence from fifty years of research in population genetics, geography, ecology, archaeology, physical anthropology, and linguistics:

“From a scientific point of view, the concept of race has failed to obtain any consensus; none is likely, given the gradual variation in existence.” “The major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis with more reliable genetic and whose origin dates from recent evolution mostly under the effect of climate and perhaps sexual selection.”

Cindy: While don't you refrain from name calling. It is uncivil and childish. If Norma has had some negative experiences, why doesn't she have the right to express them? It's hard to believe that there are adults posting these things ("you're just a troll"). Even Hannity and O'Reilly invite opposing viewpoint on their shows. They don't respond with a "Well you're a troll".
Luigi Novi: I agree with your primary premise in this passage, Cindy, but I think the final sentence is a poor example of it, particularly with regard to Hannity, whom I’ve observed from a copius amount of time listening to his radio show does not entirely refrain from ad hominem arguments or viciousness himself. If you have not observed this with respect to Hannity, then perhaps you haven’t listened to his radio show much, where he has three times as much air time as he does on his TV shows, and doesn’t have to share it equally with Alan Colmes.

MikeC: Sparrow said that RIGHT NOW he thinks Norma is a troll. As I've said, I think he may have jumped the gun a second in actually proclaiming her a troll. I also feel that the word "troll" is bandied around way too much, as it was used frequently to refer to people who present unpopular opinions (like Peter, Matt Pesti, etc., who are not trolls).
Luigi Novi: Mike, if trolling means posting provocative material intended simply to inflame and insult others, then Peter was most certainly a troll. Or do you feel that spam and links to gay porn truly adds something to the substance of the discussion?

The topic, for everyone's interest and enlightenment, is "Same-Sex Marriage," not "Who Is And Is Not A Troll, And Why, And Also Some Stuff About Right-Wing Television And Radio Personalities."

Just, you know, throwing that out there. Here's something topical that we might actually want to discuss: Tom DeLay would like to exempt the Defense of Marriage Act from review by any federal court, up to and including the United States Supreme Court. A little research shows that Congress probably *can* do this, but it's completely horrifying. It's a way of acknowledging the possible validity of an objection to the law by removing people's ability to object to it.

There is a discussion of what is and what is not a troll over at Trolls and other mysterious and unwanted posters. (Scroll down a bit.) (I hate completely forgotten about the D. Stuart Hate Squad.)

Luigi-

I had already agreed that strictly scientific evidence for genetic markers of race do not exist. My purpose was not to argue against the truth of your statement.

But the fact that is that there are physical traits assosciated with the different groups we classify as the races, and that these characteristics are inherited by the normal genetic processes.

My point was that even if we were to concede that Zarm's statement, though inaccurate, is still basically true from a less scientifically rigourous point of view (a layman's perspective), his argument still fails because his second premise is patently false.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 seems pretty clear that the Judicial Branch has the authority to make decisions on all laws:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The statement that Congress could possibly make something exempt from court review therefore seems invalid. However, is the basis for this statement Article III, Section 2, Clause 2?

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

excerpts from the Constitution at www.house.gov

While I have nothing on-topic to add, I am adding this:

Moderator - I went ahead and Dumped Norma's second/latest post, as well as Sparrow's reply. Feel free, as always, to restore them if you feel it's warranted. I did not, however, Dump Sparrow's initial reply to Norma's first post, because it read (to me) that he was referring to her post as trollish, and not her personally. I'll leave that up to your judgement.

Norma - Welcome to Nitcentral, hope you enjoy your stay. Please refrain from engaging in direct attacks/name calling while you're here (ie: calling a poster a 'loser' and other such). It will not be tolerated.

Sparrow - I don't really have anything to add here for you, since you already admitted and copped to what you did. There's no need for me to tell you that again, is there?

MJ, pulling out her dusty Roving Moderator's hat

"Luigi Novi: In and of itself, it doesn’t. The notion that some believe that the definition of the right to marry should include consenting adults who are in love with one another, rather than simply two members of the opposite sex, is what leads them to conclude that the rights are unequal. They don’t see this point was “imagined,” at least not in the way you use the word to connote a lack of legitimacy. They see it as being perfectly just." -Luigi Novi


So, if two consenting adult siblings were in love...?
Anyway, the debate that is raging here is obviously whether marriage to someone of the same sex is a right. I was simply pointing out that realistically, we all have the same rights. Sure, they want some rights to be different, but we DO have the same rights at present.


"Luigi Novi: What financial impacts?"

The first one that occurs to me is medical insurance. It is an observed and documented fact that the rate of STDs are higher (I believe MUCH higher, but I don't have the numbers in front of me at the moment) than with Heterosexual couples. What's that going to do to health insurance rates? (Unless, of course, you get different rates based on Homsexual/Heterosexual marriages, but I can see lawsuit galore down that road...)
There are certainly more examples, but I'm half asleep right now... I'll try to post some others later.


"She do what teachers are supposed to do: Give the kids facts, and leave the moral conclusions up to the kids." -Luigi Novi


I agree that that's what teachers are SUPPOSED to do. Whether that's really happening in most public schools is, to me, a matter of some debate.


"Zarm Rkeeg: When it's another group, such as they Gay community, they try to block the Senate from even discussing any opposition to it.
Luigi Novi: Where and when has the Gay community tried to prevent discussion of it?"


Perhaps I should clarify: I meant "When the issue at hand INVOLVES another group, such as the Gay community, the issue's supporters try to block the Senate from even discussing any opposition to it." (And they suceeded.)


"No it isn’t, and let me add that race is not accounted for at the genetic level. Biologically, race is literally only skin-deep." -Luigi Novi

Good point. See, I told you it wasn't exactly Webster... :-)

(scrolls down a ways)

Okay, seriously, I think he was right! Really! Thanks for your consideration, Tomm, but I just wasn't thinking on that one. So, once again: I concede the point.


"I would agree with your second statement, for the most part. I don't wish to speak for Zarm, but is he perhaps worried that the societal pressure would eventually result in a rewriting of the law to force legal action? It seems impossible now, but there are many laws and court rulings now that seemed impossible half a century ago." -MikeC


Bingo.

And I'm not saying that it WILL happen. I'm just saying that I could see it happening a few years down the road.

NSetzer:

It's the "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" that I think empowers Congress to restrict the authority of the Supreme Court, although I honestly cannot think of a single other time when Congress has attempted to use this authority. As for the lesser federal courts, I do not think there's anything as explicit; however, they are all created by act of Congress, so it would seem logical that what Congress may create, they may also restrict.

I was simply pointing out that realistically, we all have the same rights. Sure, they want some rights to be different, but we DO have the same rights at present.

Zarm, you have still not answered what I said about the fact that the same logic can be appllied to diferent race couples. Hey if I can marry any woman of the same race I have the same rights as a black person who can marry anyone of the same race, and I believe that was the rational used in places like Alabama who had laws aginst "race-mixing" on the books.

Which comes back to the same argument from before: I do not equate sexual preference with Race. I believe the first to be a choice, and the other to be a physical attribute you are born with. (Which I think is the source of most disagreement on this issue: choice vs. natural condition.)



And, yeah, I suppose that the same racial rational was used. (Although I really am tired of the "look at the mistakes we made in the past, this must obviously be the same thing" argument, which I'm sure could eventually be used to justify anything.)

The question is, where does it stop? What prevents these other groups from saying "I love my dog" or "I love my sister" or "I love this 2 year old" or any other kind of argument? If marriage is simply a right to marry anyone you love, where does it stop? What is outside of reason?

It seems to me we need a definition of what marriage is, and what the 'right to marriage' consists of, so that this can be decided once and for all and avoid this same debate/debacle if it comes up in the future for others groups, like polygamists, bestiality, etc.
What we need is a final descision that can determine the bounds once and for all and clear up all this confusion.


Hmmm... maybe if we introduced something like that to the Senate... a Constitutional Amendment or something?

Concerning the comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage: The opponents have the same mindset, and in many cases are/were the same people or their direct politcal successors, and yet in order to claim that the people to whom they are denying the right to marry still have the same rights as everyone else, their defintion of "the same rights" are exactly opposite.

When opposing "miscegenation," they claimed that like had the right to marry like, but that to extend marriage to include diferent marrying different would be unnatural, and a new right that the liberals were forcing upon the nation.

Now that they are opposing "homosexual marriage," it is different marrying different that is "natural," and like marrying like that is wrong.

Yes, there are fundamental differences between the nature of the "likes" and "differents" in both arguments, but does anyone else find it strange/amusing that the opponants have to turn their old arguments on their heads? (Those in favor, however, still have the same argument "Why should they not have the same right as anyone else to marry the person they love?")

I don't really have anything to add here for you, since you already admitted and copped to what you did. There's no need for me to tell you that again, is there? Machiko Jenkins

No, ma'am.

The question is, where does it stop? What prevents these other groups from saying "I love my dog" or "I love my sister" or "I love this 2 year old" or any other kind of argument? If marriage is simply a right to marry anyone you love, where does it stop? What is outside of reason? Zarm Rkeeg

In the first and last of those examples, the "loved" parties are ones that cannot consent to marraige. If someone wants to marry a dog, he can talk all he wants about how much he loves the dog; the dog cannot do the same. Extending marraige rights to homosexual couples does not lead to this type of slippery slope, because these other examples are very different. The middle example, though, is different, and it does raise a good question.

The question is, where does it stop? What prevents these other groups from saying "I love my dog" or "I love my sister" or "I love this 2 year old" or any other kind of argument?

1) By legal definition, a dog cannot give informed consent, and so is protected.

2) The same thing that will not allow a brother and sister to marry, even though it'd be a heterosexual marriage? I mean, really.

3) By legal definition, a 2 year old cannot give informed consent, and so is also protected.

Hey, maybe we should get rid of this silly notion of marrying for love, and go back to it for political reasons (but you can still be civilly united for love!).

Zarm:

I do not equate sexual preference with Race. I believe the first to be a choice, and the other to be a physical attribute you are born with.

But this is your *belief.* Is said belief backed up by research? How did you arrive at it? I'd be extremely hesitant to legislate such an important issue based on relatively uninformed, non-expert opinions. It just seems like that's a recipe for disaster.

Machiko:

Hey, maybe we should get rid of this silly notion of marrying for love, and go back to it for political reasons (but you can still be civilly united for love!).

Word. As my medieval civ professor would say, "In the Middle Ages, you married for the things that last: Property and titles."

Zarm Rkeeg: So, if two consenting adult siblings were in love...?
Luigi Novi: For one thing, being attracted to a gender is more fundamental than being attracted to a family member. For another, incestuous reproduction can result in birth defects and a severe social stigma in the children. Lastly, incestuous unions can serve to seriously confuse familial relationships in ways that unions between non-related gays cannot. You can move on from an ex-spouse or ex-lover, but there's no such thing as an ex-sibling. How are your parents supposed to handle a nasty divorce or a breakup? How can they support one of their kids without antagonizing the other sibling? This could wreck the whole family. We don't ban people from dating people at the office (well, some have tried), but it's an idea that can be potentially fraught with pitfalls.

Zarm Rkeeg: Anyway, the debate that is raging here is obviously whether marriage to someone of the same sex is a right. I was simply pointing out that realistically, we all have the same rights. Sure, they want some rights to be different, but we DO have the same rights at present.
Luigi Novi: And I disagree. Gays do not possess the right to marry the one they fall in love with.

Luigi Novi: What financial impacts?

Zarm Rkeeg: The first one that occurs to me is medical insurance. It is an observed and documented fact that the rate of STDs are higher (I believe MUCH higher, but I don't have the numbers in front of me at the moment) than with Heterosexual couples. What's that going to do to health insurance rates?
Luigi Novi: In the first place, I don’t think one esoteric permutation of gay marriage, which may or may not even represent the norm, should a major factor in deciding it. The importance of marrying the one you fall in love is so much greater in importance in your life and far-reaching as a social more than whether it would raise insurance. Even if this were the case, such slippery slopes are hardly valid because they could apply to any number of things that we accept today. To digress a bit, John Stossel, in his ABC Special, Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death, showed how the fear-mongering media tend to focus on exotic, the new and the mysterious, like chemicals, asbestos, shark attacks, carjacking, etc., when far more common and familiar things we take for granted like buckets, bunk beds, stairs, tap water, swimming pools and bicycles kill far more people. Stossel says he realized midway through his career as a consumer reporter that consumer reporting rarely focused on big risks, but rather on unlikely, more “interesting” ones that made more sexy or titillating stories. Stossel tried a thought experiment in which he asked members of a studio audience:

You’re a safety regulator. Or hell, just an average concerned voter. Someone claims to have a new fuel he wants to sell. It’ll be no cheaper than oil, but it will give us another choice, and reduce dependence on OPEC. The problem is, unlike oil, which is merely flammable, this new stuff is so flammable, it’s explosive. It’s also invisible, odorless, and deadly poisonous—and this guy wants to pump it into your house. Your instinct might be to laugh and refuse on the spot, saying it’s too risky. But what if it only kills ten Americans a year? Or hell, just five? Two? Some will say it’s okay if it only kills two.
---The “new” fuel, of course, is natural gas. We already use it. But we accept it, even though it kills not two or even ten Americans a year, but 400!
---Would cars be approved today? “Yeah, I got this one ton hunk of metal that’ll go 60 miles an hour, just inches from pedestrians. Oh, and I wanna put 16-year olds behind the wheel. Can I sell ‘em?” Or how about airplanes? “Yeah, I got dis gigantic aluminum tube filled with fuel, and I wanna put 300 people inside it, and fly it over cities.” Can I do it?
---Look at fuel again. We’re okay with coal, even though mining it is nasty and filthy, and kills dozens of people of year, but we’re terrified of nuclear energy. Chernobyl only killed 30 people, and even if the radiation may eventually kill others, natural gas still kills more every year. Nuclear power is probably safer than other fuels, but it’s relatively new and mysterious, so it terrifies.

Bringing this point back to Zarm’s argument about gay marriage leading to medical insurance hikes, would this really be the most prevalent scenario in a country that allows gay marriage? Is it even the one that if prevented, will keep rates down the most? Do we really have to be so scared of gay marriage, either because of insurance, or for that matter, any of the other scary scenarios that those opposed to it suggest?

Lastly, would this really increase rates for everyone, or just for gays? I’m not an expert on how insurance works, but don’t people already get different rates based on their lifestyles, as in the example of smokers? Don’t insurance carries require physicals? Wouldn’t a monogamous gay couple that’s STD-free not acquire any if they remain monogamous? Wouldn’t a physical eliminate the scenario you describe?

Luigi Novi: "She do what teachers are supposed to do: Give the kids facts, and leave the moral conclusions up to the kids."

Zarm Rkeeg: I agree that that's what teachers are SUPPOSED to do. Whether that's really happening in most public schools is, to me, a matter of some debate.
Luigi Novi: But that’s an entirely separate discussion, one that’s mutually exclusive from the homosexual marriage debate. You could ask whether teachers are giving kids all the facts about all controversial subjects and allowing them to make up their own minds about Christopher Columbus’ voyages, Dr. Martin Luther King’s ties to communism, the positive and negative aspects of JFK’s presidency, the circumstances behind King Tutankhamen’s death, the identity of the model Da Vinci used for the Mona Lisa, the existence of naked singularities, etc. That’s a far more general question that doesn’t even require any mention of homosexuality.

Zarm Rkeeg: When it's another group, such as they Gay community, they try to block the Senate from even discussing any opposition to it.

Luigi Novi: Where and when has the Gay community tried to prevent discussion of it?"

Zarm Rkeeg: Perhaps I should clarify: I meant "When the issue at hand INVOLVES another group, such as the Gay community, the issue's supporters try to block the Senate from even discussing any opposition to it." (And they suceeded.)
Luigi Novi: Okay, let me incorporate your clarification into the question, and ask it again: Where and when has the issue’s supporters tried and succeeded to prevent discussion of it?

Zarm Rkeeg: And I'm not saying that it WILL happen. I'm just saying that I could see it happening a few years down the road.
Luigi Novi: So can I. And I can see the result.

Women: “We want you to ordain women.”
Church: “No.”
Women: “We’ll sue you!”
State: “Can’t. We can’t interfere in how churches run their business. Separation of Church and State prevents it.”
Gays: “We want you to marry gays.”
Church: “No.”
Gays: “We’ll sue you!”
State: “Can’t. We can’t interfere in how churches run their business. Separation of Church and State prevents it.”

And that’s pretty much that. So what’s the problem?

Zarm Rkeeg: Which comes back to the same argument from before: I do not equate sexual preference with Race. I believe the first to be a choice, and the other to be a physical attribute you are born with.
Luigi Novi: The evidence would indicate that sexual orientation is just as natural, and that homosexuality in humans is just as naturally-occurring as it is in bonobos, monkeys, orangutans, dolphins, antelopes, elephants, goats and guinea pigs. On what basis do you conclude that it’s not?

Zarm Rkeeg: The question is, where does it stop? What prevents these other groups from saying "I love my dog" or "I love my sister" or "I love this 2 year old" or any other kind of argument? If marriage is simply a right to marry anyone you love, where does it stop? What is outside of reason?
Luigi Novi: Dogs are not sentient, consenting adult human beings that can give consent. If you want to equate dogs with humans, then wouldn’t having sex with a dog, at least in some or most cases, be comparable to rape? The part about siblings was answered above. Two-year olds are not old enough to understand or handle the responsibility of sex, to say nothing of what effect sex may have on their bodies. None of this is the case with consenting adult gays. Does this answer your question about why gay marriage advocates do not equate it with these things?

Zarm Rkeeg: It seems to me we need a definition of what marriage is, and what the 'right to marriage' consists of, so that this can be decided once and for all and avoid this same debate/debacle if it comes up in the future for others groups, like polygamists, bestiality, etc.
Luigi Novi: For the purposes of expanding the definition to include gays, marriage can be defined as is the legal union of two consenting adult human beings not related to one another to create a familial unit, usually, but not restricted to, a man and a woman.

Silly me, but couldn't this theoretically happen:

GAYS: We want you to marry us.
STATE: Separation of church and state says no.
GAYS: We shall wage a pressure campaign and an education campaign.
PEOPLE: Based on this, we shall change our Constitution to define that separation of church and state shall not give a public enterprise such as the church the ability to discriminate.

(This is an intense slippery slope argument, but I think it is what Zarm is arguing)

MikeC:

Well, yes, but isn't that essentially equivalent to what is happening *now*? We have a Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees all citizens due process and equal protection. We have a proposed amendment that says, essentially, "equal protection doesn't apply to marriage."

Anyway, like I've said before, you can do pretty much anything you want to the Constitution, but it's so overwhelmingly difficult to change things that it's almost never worth it to try. And altering something as fundamental as the Establishment Clause... well, you might as well rip the whole thing up and start again.

And I should mention once again that a change in the Constitution has *nothing* to do with "the people." Amendments are introduced in Congress, then approved by state legislatures or constitutional conventions in each state. Under no circumstances are Constitutional amendments put to a direct popular vote. The rules for state constitutions differ by state, of course.

Obviously you have never been to Kentucky if you think homosexual love is more common than sibling love.... (just a joke mind you)

Seriously lets look at what you are all saying, "According to the law...(fill in the blank) is illegal" Dogs, Siblings, and little Kids, all cannot be married because they have laws protecting us from these things. Looks at what we are doing with homosexuals. It's illegal, and we are trying to change the law because they "Deserve the Right to Marry the one they love" So if I marry my sibling, the child could have birth defects, big deal, I love my sibling. I mean, at least with a sibling I could have a child....

Look at the logic, If the 14th Ammendment provides equal protection under the law, and if that right is to marry the one that I love, then everyone should be able to marry whoever or whatever that they want. That in my mind is equal protection under the law. However, if we define the right as the right for a non related man and woman to marry, then the 14 ammendment is perfect, and Everyone is allowed the same protections.

And if we define the right to marry as the right for two non-related consenting adults to marry, then the 14th Amendment is perfect, and everyone is allowed the same protections.

See, it's just that simple, and it neatly avoids the incest/bestiality/pedophilia/inanimate object arguments which have already been discussed and debated extensively. No muss, no fuss.

You are correct, Matthew, regarding your first post; amendments really are one big cycle.

Regarding your second post, about defining the right to marry--that is interesting, but how would we do that?

*grins*

Why, exactly the way anyone else would define the right to marry, of course: Write an amendment to the Constitution!

Mike, I do not believe the Constitution is going to be changed to remove Separation of Church and State. Such an effort would never get off the ground, as Matthew alluded to.

Derrick Vargo: Seriously lets look at what you are all saying, "According to the law...(fill in the blank) is illegal" Dogs, Siblings, and little Kids, all cannot be married because they have laws protecting us from these things.
Luigi Novi: No, that’s not what we said. If you actually read the posts, you’ll see that we pointed out how there are legitimate reasons for those laws, such as the ability to give consent, the emotional maturity necessary to handle the responsibilities of sex, the confusion over familial relationships, etc., and how gay marriage between non-related consenting adults does not entail any of these things. Didn’t you read this?

Derrick Vargo: Looks at what we are doing with homosexuals. It's illegal, and we are trying to change the law because they "Deserve the Right to Marry the one they love"....
Luigi Novi: First, as Matthew pointed out on the previous board, it’s not illegal:

Gay marriage is not, in fact, illegal throughout the country. Massachusetts has had full, legal, same-sex marriages since May. Vermont has had civil unions since 2000. California, Hawaii, and New Jersey also have... I guess they would be referred to as "domestic partnership" laws, although I'm not sure how each state refers to them. On the flip side, Alaska, Nebraska, and Nevada have state constitutional amendments banning the practice, and thirty-nine other states have civil laws restricting gay marriage that are modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Second, whether something is legal or illegal changes based on the prevailing desires of society. Laws are not immutable. They change when the people want them to. The basis on which such a law should be argued—which we are doing here—is the basis for that law; that is, is there a legitimate reason why it should be against the law. There are legitimate reasons why we have laws against marrying your dog, your baby, your sibling, etc. None of these considerations pertain to non-related consenting adult homosexuals, which is why gay rights advocates do not want to keep gay marriage illegal. Therefore, using a “If they’re making this legal, they can make anything legal” argument ignores this point.

Derrick Vargo: …So if I marry my sibling, the child could have birth defects, big deal, I love my sibling.
Luigi Novi: Your “big deal” comment implies that the reasons why incestuous marriage is illegal should be discounted. In fact, those reasons are precisely why incestuous marriage is illegal, and the absence of them is why gay marriage should not be.

Derrick Vargo: I mean, at least with a sibling I could have a child....
Luigi Novi: As do homosexuals. Last time I checked, many lesbian couples have children biologically by acquiring sperm from donors.

Luigi Novi: As do homosexuals. Last time I checked, many lesbian couples have children biologically by acquiring sperm from donors.

Not to mention gay couples and surrogate mothers. Or, you know, adoption, which is *not* a dirty word.

Out of curiosity, how does the homosexual/adoption situation work right now? It varies by state--does it generally tend to favor lesbian couples over male ones?

No, it favors married couples over unmarried ones.

You may, of course, see the problems with this right off the bat.

I knew that, I was wondering how it applied to the unmarried ones.

Seriously, that's all I know about the adoption situation. I've never really looked at it for two reasons: I don't want to think about children, and family law is ridiculously complicated.

Your missing my point Luigi, I did read all of the postings, and yes, my bad, gay marriage is only illegal in 90% of the states, not all of them.

Here is my proposition, could it not be argued that it is the choice of the people in love (the siblings) If they want to take a risk and have a deformed baby, how does the government have any right to take that away from them. (Keep in mind, this argument is based on the "We should be allowed to marry whoever we love" Argument)

Please Luigi, try and stay to the intent of my posts, and not get bogged down in symantics. I meant that homosexuals cannot have kids with each other, and not that they couldn't have kids period.

I have read all the posts and came to the concusion that they do not pacify any of these questions. You claim that these things are wrong. You claim that pedofillia is wrong, you claim that incest, and you claim that beastiality is wrong (which I am in agreement of all three). However, 50 years ago, everyone would have said that homosexuality is wrong, for much of the same reasons. If we legalize gay marriage, then sooner or later, these other extreme minorities will also want there rights, and I can forcast the same things happening over and over again.

However, 50 years ago, everyone would have said that homosexuality is wrong, for much of the same reasons. If we legalize gay marriage, then sooner or later, these other extreme minorities will also want there rights, and I can forcast the same things happening over and over again.

Once again, *no*, because demonstrable harm is done to people who practice these other things, whereas homosexuality in and of itself is *not* harmful to anyone in any sense other than the religious.

Derrick Vargo: Here is my proposition, could it not be argued that it is the choice of the people in love (the siblings) If they want to take a risk and have a deformed baby, how does the government have any right to take that away from them.
Luigi Novi: I just explained that. Look at my response to your first quoted statement in my July 18th post above, where I answer that question.

Whenever the state should regulate or ban something, it should do so only where there is a clear and present danger to others. Those others things show such a danger. Gay marriage does not. Hence, adult age, consent, and love are the o

Derrick Vargo: (Keep in mind, this argument is based on the "We should be allowed to marry whoever we love" Argument)
Luigi Novi: Yes, so long as there are not other circumstances that should prevent it, as mentioned above. Nowhere did I or any others who share my position imply that any such argument is absolute; The manner in which an argument or bit of reasoning can be applied in support of a position depends on such circumstances. I don’t see any way gay marriage harms others, so there’s no reason why marriage should not include adult, consenting, non-related gays. The same cannot be said for incestuous, pedophilic, or bestial marriage. Marriage, after all, requires, among other things, consent. How can a baby or a dog give consent?

Derrick Vargo: Please Luigi, try and stay to the intent of my posts, and not get bogged down in symantics. I meant that homosexuals cannot have kids with each other, and not that they couldn't have kids period.
Luigi Novi: I apologize if I misunderstood you.

Derrick Vargo: I have read all the posts and came to the concusion that they do not pacify any of these questions. You claim that these things are wrong. You claim that pedofillia is wrong, you claim that incest, and you claim that beastiality is wrong (which I am in agreement of all three). However, 50 years ago, everyone would have said that homosexuality is wrong, for much of the same reasons.
Luigi Novi: The same reasons?

I argued above (and here) that incestuous marriage could produce severely deformed children, and cause familial confusion, especially in the case of a divorce. This does not hold true for gays, and I’ve never heard anyone promote this as a reason for why they’re against gay marriage.

I argued above that babies and children do not possess the emotional and physical maturity to handle the responsibility of marriage and sex. This does not hold true for gays, and I’ve never heard anyone promote this as a reason for why they’re against gay marriage. Who would argue that an adult homosexual doesn’t possess the maturity for consent?

I argued above that if dogs were equated with humans, then sex or marriage with them would be akin to rape, since you could not necessarily know if your dog wanted this as much as you did, and that the state could not possibly assume otherwise. And again, dogs do not possess the intellect to understand any of this. This does not hold true for gays, and I’ve never heard anyone promote this as a reason for why they’re against gay marriage. Who would argue that and adult homosexual doesn’t possess the intelligence to understand what marriage is?

So how are the arguments “the same”?

Derrick Vargo: If we legalize gay marriage, then sooner or later, these other extreme minorities will also want there rights, and I can forcast the same things happening over and over again.
Luigi Novi: First, the insistence by one group to demand certain rights does not necessarily lead another, in and of itself, to demands rights for themselves. There is a natural drive for increased liberty, and it is this that spurns groups to demand rights. A gay didn’t just walk down the street, see a black couple, and say to himself, “You know, I never thought about marriage for gay people like myself, but now that I see those two members of a minority group that have been given that right, I think I want it too.” Gays want the right to marry because of the same pair-bonding drive that drives heterosexuals to pair-bond and get married, and they would demand the right to marry regardless of whether other groups were granted it.

Second, what makes you think that it is only legalized gay marriage that will lead to those other groups demanding rights? NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, has been trying to legalize sex between men and young boys for years, long before the legalization of gay marriage in some states. So obviously, people like pedophiles don’t need mere example of expanded rights to try and get some for themselves.

By making this connection, you are again ignoring the fact that there are major differences between groups that we agree should have rights (blacks, women), and those that should not (pedophiles, incestuous lovers), and that these differences are precisely why one group, like gays, should be granted equal rights, and others like pedophiles should not. To oversimplify this into “well, one group getting rights means others will” is intellectual relativism, because it presumes that all groups, and the circumstances involving them, are identical. They’re not.

The same-sex marriage issue is one that really turns a lot of secular people off. It's just another tiresome attempt by the religious right to impose their values on the larger society. We've seen similar efforts before. Even into the nineties and the new millenium, Creationists have been trying to put Creationism into science books used in public schools. Today, they still keep up their tired fixation on values. If creationism and discrimination are representative of their values, then we should reject allowing them to become part of state or federal law. I don't want anyone's religious values imposed on me, whether Christian, Muslim, or Hindu. It's sad that in 2004, we still have to play the politically correct game of being respectful towards superstitious beliefs.

Creationism IS not part of state or federal law. And I don't think that's what you meant, but being "respectful" towards religion isn't politicaly correct, it's common decency. Being respectful doesn't mean we legislate based on religion, it's that we listen to what these people have to say and see if we can find common ground without mocking their beliefs.

Creationism IS not part of state or federal law.

Not quite true; every few years in Louisiana, for example, someone in the legislature attempts to mandate the teaching of "alternatives to evolution," which is always interpreted and understood as "creationism" in schools. Sometimes it doesn't make it through the legislature, and sometimes it does, but the courts strike it down. It's not quite true to say that no state law mandates the teaching of creationism; seems like every year, someone tries to slip it in somewhere.

I think Bill Maher had an interesting take on respect toward religion on his HBO special. He asked why we just can't say it is wrong for Islam (his show had terrorism related issues as its focus) to teach discrimation towards women and advocating killing infidels. How can it be disrespectful to criticise views that are themselves incredibly disrepectful towards whole groups of people. I wouldn't just single out the Muslim religion. Catholicism also preaches discrimination towards women (women can't be priests, for example). I am also disgusted by the still continuing efforts to get Creationism in school science books.

Is there any reason why you can't say it's wrong? I mean, you just did. It isn't disrespectful to say "I think the Islamic religion is discriminatory towards women," or "I think the Christian religion is discriminatory towards homoexuality." It IS disrespectful to be insulting while doing it because you should recognize that while it seems discriminatory and disrespectful to you, to the person believing it, it seems perfectly valid.

So you should say it's discriminatory without being insulting because to the person believing it, it's valid? But wouldn't a good amount of people regard the mere statement that it's discriminatory as insulting?

Probably yes, but if I recall, you have the right to hold any opinion you want and the ability to express that opinion in a reasonable manner. By being "insulting," I mean saying stuff like "Get your head out of your ass, you stoopid Christian. You hate gays." That is PERSONALLY insulting. Saying "I think the Christian religion is discriminatory towards homosexuality" could offend Christians, but I think it's a perfectly reasonable statement. You could dispute the veracity of it through an intelligent dialogue, of course.

A couple of weeks ago, while using the remote to get the news on tv, I pressed the wrong button. I accidently turned on one of the religious channels. I caught the last five minutes of the program for Rev. Kennedy of Corral Ridge, Florida. I would have turned the channel immediately except for the fact that I was amazed by the b.s. spewing out of this bible thumping biogot. He was carrying on about how same-sex marriges have ruined Norway. He stated that because same-sex marriages are legal there, man-woman marriages are down by 80% and now most children are born out of wedlock. At the end, he begged his viewers to send in money because same-sex marriage posed such a danger to America. To an atheist, he looked so foolish as to be laughable. Unfortunately, he isn't laughable. He and his allies in the Bush administration are the ones who pose a danger to America: attempting to write discrimination into the law and using superstitious biblical nonsense to encourage hatred of a minority group.

The Bush administration, itself, looked foolish this week. As Bush continued his unwavering support for banning same-sex marriges, Cheney finally publically admitted his daughter was a lesbian. Not even an ironic spectacle, more of a pathetic one. The Republicans have officially declared their position for their convention. Hopefully, the media won't ignore the protesters...and not just the proponents of same-sex marriage. The Bush peoples' attacks on Kerry's Vietnam record is totally disgusting. I want to hear what Vet protesters have to say too.

*stands up and applauds*

...He was carrying on about how same-sex marriges have ruined Norway....

I wonder if anybody has told the norwegians that they have ruined their country? Because I don't think they would agree. (Okay, I don't know personally any Norwegians, and they aren't in the news often ... which means they don't have any big problems; but generally the scandinavian nations are considered socially and economically stable, reasonable and pretty happy countries.)

For that matter, he would probably tell us that Germany ruined itself, since Gay legal unions have been recognized last year. Though most germans think the problem are the economy and the political reforms - that's what people are protesting in the streets.

Constanze, seriously, how do you think Germans would react if Chancellor Schroeder suddenly announced that same-sex marriages pose such a huge threat to Germany? In America, Bush spews his bible garbage and there is always a muted response; the media doesn't want to offend religious people. However, the religious right has decided that same-sex marriage is their BIG issue for 2004. A couple of weeks ago on Bill Maher's HBO program, Maher said he thought all of the irrational hatred of gays expressed by polititians today is because of religion. The irrational hatred itself, and the pandering to religious voters. Maher strongly disagreed with Rahm Emmanuel's assertion that religion wasn't the primary source of that hatred. Then where else does it come from? I don't like it when religious people assume that superstitious beliefs are given and known facts. In 2004, the religious right is still trying to put creationism into school science books. This is a total outrage to me. I know that Bush still claims that "the jury is still out on evolution". When I read comments about foriegn leaders considering Bush to be an idiot, I can only agree. Except he's not some harmless Forrest Gump.

I agree with the Vice-President's Stephen Douglasian strategy; same-sex marriage should be an issue that each state should decide for themselves on.

And I disagree that not allowing same-sex marriages in a state is an "irrational hatred of gays."

Constanze, seriously, how do you think Germans would react if Chancellor Schroeder suddenly announced that same-sex marriages pose such a huge threat to Germany? ...

Laugh their heads of, I guess - or wonder why he isn't thinking of his half-assed reforms. Schröder, not to forget, is divorced himself, and has remarried (IIRC, his wife worked for him before their marriage, a bit like an intern). Foreign minister Joschka Fischer is married with his fourth wife. The majority of the Germans didn't care one minute about this when they voted for the Red-Green coalition two times, they wanted to finally get rid of the conservative party.
Germans have a very relaxed attitude towards Religion - although, or maybe because, we have two official state churches, and religion is taught in schools, not sunday at church. I think this is the best way, because it ensures that no fundamentalism will be taught. (I'm so sure because, since the Muslim faith has no central authority, Muslim children have not-regulated religion classes so far, and nobody knows how much fundamentalism is preached there. Thankfully, 20 years too late, but better late than never, a new study subject for teachers, Muslim faith, has been started at a Westfalian University, to have state-regulated and state-controlled muslim religion classes in school, which are in accordance with the basic human rights and state principles.)

This is also why nobody here in Germany has heard of creationism. If anybody would say "The jury's still out on evolution", he would be thought to be unbelievably backward, or have been indoctrinated by a fundi cult.

constanze: Germans have a very relaxed attitude towards Religion - although, or maybe because, we have two official state churches, and religion is taught in schools...
Luigi Novi: Descriptively or prescriptively?

Descriptively or prescriptively?

Huh? Please explain.

Do you mean how a religion class is taught like? The religion teachers need a college education for theology - either catholic or protestant - together with the usual pedagogic education. I had protestant religion, because I was baptized in the protestant Church.

In lower level high School - classes 5 till 8 - we learned the stories of the old and new testament. We had maybe one year history of Martin Luther, the religion wars and so on. We also had one or two years of other religions - Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and several approaches to atheism. In the upper classes, we had more "philosphical" discussions - how to deal with suffering, which often causes people to loose their faith. We had half a year of practical advice on how to help handicapped, and that money or working power isn't all that counts. Or how to deal with people in coma, under severe pains, who wish for death. We read part of the book "We children from the Zoo station", which is the anonymous true-life account of a young girl in Berlin who takes drugs and ruins her life that way. That kind of problem stuff. In the last two years, which are preparation for the Abitur, the High School certificate, only the people really interested in religion remained, the others didn't choose the subject, so we had interesting discussions: about the two creation accounts in genesis; or if the bible commands us to be vegetarians.
It's true that we didn't cover the subject as deeply as a theology course might - I have no in-depth knowledge of all the Dogmas of my Church. I didn't know the extent of the Bible research in the last 100 years, which Peter DeRosa and Deschner tell about in their books.
But it was a good level-headed and relaxed approach to religion. In 8th grade, we discussed the contradiction between genesis and evolution - which was part of the biology curriculum, of course, - and the answer was "Religion answers the why, Science the how", that is, creation was to be taken figuratively. (And I really like the story of God breathing his spirit with his breath into a clay figure - it's a powerful myth, which touches the soul. That's what myths are for, after all.) Nobody in our class had any problem with that explanation, or had thought of taking genesis literally. It was more the attitude "Gee, we all know that, nobody takes the bible literally, lets move on."


*Which child goes in what class is determined by the parents. Many people nowadays quit church because they don't want to pay the obligatory church tax of 8% of income tax, which the state deducts from the paycheck and gives to the church. Thus, a member of Church is identified on his tax card.
If the parents don't belong in a church, or in another denomination, or don't want religion class, the child gets ethics class instead.
At the age of 14, children are considered adult in regards to religion, which means they can leave the church of their parents or enter any church they like. They can also tell their school director they want to switch from ethics to catholic class, or the like, and the parents have no say in that matter.
In my school, the protestant religion teacher was a very nice, good, tolerant teacher; and ethics class was late in the afternoon, so many children who didn't care about religion much still went to his class.

Descriptively or prescriptively?

Huh? Please explain.

I believe Luigi meant "Do the schools teach 'Religion' or do they teach 'about religion' (as they would teach Greek Mythology or Plato and Aristotle)?"

Your answer would seem to indicate that they teach "Religion," which would correspond to Luigi's "prescriptively."

That sort of level-headed middle ground approach is precisely what is not available in the States. For the government-sponsored schools it would be too much "preaching" of a "specific" religion. (Even if it were a more vague "Judeo-Christian culture" focus rather than any actually practiced religion, it would violate the "Separation of Church and State" condition that says that government must not "establish" any religion over any others. Even an ethics class such as you describe for the non-churched German families would probably bring lawsuits (After all a "moment of silence" does when someone thinks that it is "code" for "pray now.")

Most church-sponsored schools, on the other hand over-react to the government schools' restrictions and over-emphasize the church's doctrines with almost cult-like zeal. In the case of some fundimentalist extremes, this might go so far as to replace sound science with such pseudo-science topics as Creationism.

Since Catholic schools in America began at a time when government-sponsored schools accepted some discussion of religious ethics, as a reponse to them being "too Protestant," and since most modern American Catholics are "lapsed" or "fallen away" in their observances (and therefore not particularly doctrinaire), some Catholic schools do have a religion curriculum somewhat akin to what you describe, but it is far from universal.

In my own case, my lower grades (1-8) were very doctrine-heavy. They were taught directly from the official Catechism. My later grades (9-12) attempted to discuss social problems just as yours did, (I remember using West Side Story as our point of reference one semester.)

I forgot to mention one important point about our religion class: Its more like "teaching about religion" than "teaching religion" since faith is not required. Since it was only a minor subject, we had no big tests, but some small tests. All grades were on how well we could recite the facts that had been taught in the previous lessons; how actively we participated in discussions (not the opinion we had!); and how well we paid attention and learned the subject.
Very objective. That's why several of my classmates, who didn't believe in religion at all, preferred it to later-hour ethics.
And we never had Catechism in school. I don't even remember it from my Confirmation class, either, (that was a private, church-oriented class once a week, for one year, before my confirmation at age 14), but maybe protestants aren't heavy on dogmas and doctrine anyway.

And what Rona said above about the media not wanting to offend the religious people... most priests, whether catholic or protestant (okay, the catholic would easier get into trouble with rome, but the protestant immediately) would start protesting that their faith and religion is being misused if any politican started talking about creationism or some such ideas. (To be fair, the right-conservatives, CSU and CDU, have tried the angle of how families falling apart ruin the country, but it's not the main agenda, its one point among many with which they try to appeal to their voters.)

Some years ago there was big trouble in germany when on the abortion issue a group of catholic priests went against Rome because of their conscience (here, in order to have an abortion, a woman must prove she's had some counseling about the impact of such a decision, the reasons - so its not spur of the moment - , the alternatives, etc. The woman can decide whether she wants counseling at pro-familia, which is pro-abortion, or at a church-oriented institute, or at a neutral institute. Without this proof, no legal abortion. Rome ruled that since this proof was necessary, it was helping abortion and therefore forbidden, although the catholic counseling put extreme pressures on the woman to not have an abortion. A group of bishops said they didn't want to leave the women alone when they need counseling the most, and that pulling out wouldn't stop the abortions, the women would simply get counseling and proof somewhere else. They've decided to offer counseling, but not proof, so women who want it need to go to another institute afterwards. And even this is for some reason a problem for Rome.

TomM: Your answer would seem to indicate that they teach "Religion," which would correspond to Luigi's "prescriptively."
Luigi Novi: ??? She said they also teach about Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and several approaches to atheism. Dosesn't that indicate that it's descriptive? She herself said after your post that they teach about religion rather than teaching indoctrinationally. (Is that a word?)

Descriptive, perhaps in the discussion of other religions. But at the same time, they do teach the Catholics, the Protestants (Lutherans?) and the unchurched separately because of thier doctrinal differences, and there is a heavy dose of practical ethics included. I just don't think the distinctions you are trying to make apply in the same way as here.

All in all, it's a healthy mix of reverence and rationalism, of respect and scepticism. A mix that is nearly impossible here in the States.

Isn't it an interesting paradox, that in Germany - which has two offical churches, the state collects the tax for them, religion is taught in the schools - fundi religion plays almost no part in the political debate, and most church officals (priests etc.) have a rational, relaxed attitude about religion instead of fundamentalist; while in the US, where the seperation of Church and State is a sacrosanct principle, fundi religion has a large influence on politics?

Another reason why I think that teaching religion as subject (not faith) in school is important became apparent after reunion: in east germany, because of communist doctrine, no religion was taught in school. This meant that the majority of east germans didn't know why christmas is celebrated, or who is meant when a text refers to "the man from nazareth". This is a serious handicap since religion has influenced Europe for a large part of history, so in understanding history, one needs to know the basic prinicples and dogmas of christian religion (one doesn't need to believe them, just know them.)

For example, over 90% of paintings (and a large number of other art) was religously inspired, because the painters were ordered by the Church. (If the pope hadn't paid Michelangelo, there would be no Sistine Chapel or David or Pieta. Etc...)
Although politic in europe didn't follow the teachings of Christianty (love thy neighbor etc.), the doctrine of the Church on sexuality, how to deal with unbelievers, that a monarch got his power from God and was therefore untouchable (while democracy was against nature) etc. all influenced european history. And through wars, trade etc. europe influenced Islamic countries and America. (One part of the exploration urge was the belief of Rome that everybody needs to hear about Jesus to be saved from hell. Another was gold and riches, of course. Another part was scientific thirst.)

Likewise, when studying Islamic art, people should know why Kalligraphy is developed so highly, but not pictures (during some part of the protestant revolution, pictures were smashed in german churches, too, but that relaxed later). Faith isn't required, but knowledge of what motivated people, or what is portrayed and why.

I don't think it's a paradox; I think it makes perfect sense to me.

Bush said God picked him to be President. Does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense if your part of Bush's religion. In his denomination of Christianity they beleive that God is in control of pretty much everything. (To put it another way, God is all powerfull so he could do anything he wants, so he has final say in everything...) So in his personal religion, it makes perfect sense..

What doesn't make sense is why this is in legal musings....

Bush said God picked him to be President. Does that make sense?

Depends which God he means - maybe Chtuhlu? The prince of darkness? That would fit his actions.

MikeC,

okay, a better word for it maybe irony: Germany, as most european countries, is secular despite State Churches and religion classes in public schools.
The US, which has SoChaS in the constitution (theory), isn't secular in real life.
I think it's ironic.

Secularist: Bush said God picked him to be President.
Luigi Novi: God need to fire his Human Resources staff.

I'd like to see the employee contract. Wonder who signed it? (Maybe God meant "President of the AA" and Bush didn't listen to the whole sentence?)

Re Luigi:

"Bush? This is God speaking. You know, when I told you sometime ago, that I picked you to be President? Sorry about that. Mistake from my recent HR staff. Mixup of forms. What I meant is that I want you here on the double - you'll die in the next 48 hours. Bye."

"George, this is GOD. I'm having a dissolute sons of politicians meeting, and I'd like you to be present."

"Woo! God wants me to be pre-si-dent!"

Snick,

ROFLMHO

So Bush says he communicates directly with God...joins such fine company as the Ayatollahs and Jerry Falwell. Does he communicate with the Easter Bunny too?

Can I have a link for the Bush talking to God thing?

I talk directly to God, your point? OR do you just like making fun of other people's religions you bigot! Honestly, just because people don't share the same beleives as you do doesn't mean that you have the right to make fun of them. I mean honestly. So Bush says he communicates directly with God, NEWS FLASH: IT'S CALLED PRAYER, and pretty much eveyr christian sect (aside from catholics) beleive this. Stop being so narrow minded, because that is what you are at this moment

Disclaimer: I am not voting for Bush, but I'm not "anti-Bush".

Derrick, there's a difference between talking to G-d, or praying, and having Him talk back to you.

When a politician claims that because of his religion he has some direct line to God (which doesn't exist) and he claims God picked him to be President, God wants him to write discrimination into the laws of the land, and on and on...that makes it more than acceptable to criticise him. It makes it necessary to do so. This isn't the Middle Ages where no one is to question those claiming to be a representative of God (and claiming God picked him to be President makes him just as phony as any medieval cleric). This is the 21st century, and more than a few of us are sick and tired of all the religious garbage, whether from Muslim fanatics or Christian fundamentalists.

God doesn't exist? Thanks!

As a christian I think not. I'm pretty sure i have a deeper understanding of the meaning of Bush's Words than you do, seeing as how we are of the same religious affiliation. When Bush says that he is in communication with God, it means prayer...it's the christian terminology. You guys are just reading to much into it, thats all.

Also, some groups of christians, (Bush's and my own) beleive that God is in control over pretty much everything, so if Bush is president, then of Course it would be God's will for him to be there. I dont want to get into that argument on this board however, predestination is really something that should go on a religious musings message board.

...and pretty much every christian sect (aside from catholics) beleive this. Derrick Vargo

Derrick, please explain why you added the section in parenthases, and what you intended by including it. I do not wish to accuse you of trolling or flaming when it is something much less serious such as simple ignorance or even a misunderstanding. Thank you.

It's not a flame, just theologically Catholics use mary as an ittercesory person to pray to, they pray to Mary, and Mary relates their requests to Jesus. Most other major sects of Christianity pray directly to Jesus or God. I didn't mean a flame at all, just trying to stear clear of any nits further down the road if someone were to bring up the example of catholisism.

That's not my experience, Derrick. Growing, I was taught to pray to God, to Jesus, to Mary, to whomever.

That's what I thought. It was simple misinformation. I just wanted to be sure.

Most formal Catholic prayers (with the partial exceptions of the Ave Maria and the Magnificat, which are mostly scriptural quotations) are adressed directly to God.

The Catholic church has named many saints as "patron saints" of various professions, countries, and other aspects of life. Often it means only that during their lifetime they were associated with that activity or place or whatever.

In earlier times, and among more the more superstitious even today, it was felt that your prayer would be heard faster if you went "through channels" instead of going directly to God, so you should pray to the patron saint who relates most closely to your request: St Anthony if you are looking for something lost, St Valentine if you want help with your love life, etc. Or You would pray to your name-saint (the saint you were named for).

(Just as in medieval times anyone could come before the king's court of justice, but if you had a patron at the court,your case would be heard faster, and was more likely to go in your favor than if you, a nobody went "pro se.")

Mary, as "the Mother of God," was (and still is) venerated as the "Queen of Heaven), and festivals were/are held in her honor, but personal prayers were usually not addressed to her (unless she was your name-saint).

Most modern Catholics, especially in America, and since Vatican II (and the razing of the "Berlin Wall" between Catholics and Protestants), prefer to pray directly to God, just like their Protestant neighbors. It's more "democratic" and it's more personal.

Christians should take a step back and look at how ridiculous their religion is. It's superstitious nonsense. Just like Voodoo, Christians believe in resurrected dead bodies. Enjoy your fairytales. Really, religion has been the cause of more deathes, strife, and conflict throughout history. How can anyone intellectually defend all that nonsense?

Wow, you're right, it is ridiculous. I've been wasting my life. Thank you, anonymous Internet poster; you've changed my life forever.

The real question is, why is *any* of this religion-bashing on Legal Musings, under the topic "Same-Sex Marriage?"

You know, all I ever seem to post anymore is a bunch of crabbing about how nobody ever stays on topic. So let's try this: A judge in California rules that expanding domestic partnership benefits does not violate the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. I think this judge's reasoning is the best possible under the circumstances: If you want marriage to be between one man and one woman, then that's what we'll call a domestic arrangement between one man and one woman. I still don't *like* it, because it virtually drips with "separate but equal," but I think it's the best that can be done on a statewide level for now.

From the SF Gate, we learn that new benefits include alimony and child support for couples who split up, access to family court for the same, and the right to take extended leave from work to care for a partner. This expansion guarantees same-sex couples all the duties and privileges of marriage, under California law, except for the right to file joint income tax returns. Ah, progress.

Yeah, i vote to move any of this Bashing of religions (Non-beleiver) into a seperate board if at all possible. Thanks for clearing up some of these points Tom, I didn't mean to say they dont pray to God, just that they pray sometimes to others. I was personally under the impression that it was a little more widespread, but that might just be something some of the catholics that I have known have done...

Bashings of religions? What about bashings of non-religious? Have you watched any "Christian" programs lately?...still up to their tired old condemnations of "secular humanists" (atheists). Sounds just like the Taliban condemning "infidels".
As for why it's on the same-sex marriage board. Well, the Religious Right is the one that has decided this issue is their big cause to fight in 2004. Some of us don't dream of wanting a Christian "Taliban" style state where abortion is outlawed, as would stem-cell research, teaching evolution in the schools, and same-sex marriage. It's really wonderful how tolerant Christian fundamentalists are of people who don't share their religious beliefs. I know, non-Christians such as atheists, Jews, Buddists, etc are going to hell according to them. Scary stuff, why not just create another Inquisition. The Church was really powerful then. They could simply kill anyone opposed to them.

I don't want stem-cell research banned. There are ways to research stem-cells not involving embryos. Anyway, private research involving embryos is legal.

I want evolution taught in schools and have never argued against it.

I think the people should have the right to decide for themselves on same-sex marriage.

I do think abortion should be illegal because I believe it is terminating a life.

If these statements make me Talibanesque, then I guess I am. But I really dislike people that happen to disagree on the issues smearing their opponents by calling them Taliban or Inquisitionists.

Mike: Uh, buddy, pal, you're voting for a guy whose right hand man ordered that war hero and Georgia Senator Max Cleland be compared in TV ads to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

Understand that if it were anybody but you, I probably would've slipped in a smart-ass remark in there somewhere. ;-)

And that was wrong. So? I didn't say I idolized Bush, I just said I was voting for him. Can you honestly say you approve of every action that Kerry has took in his life?

No, but then again Kerry hasn't done anything comparable (the Right Wing spin-machine's take on two independently produced commercials that were never even aired notwithstanding) to something that awful. It also wasn't Kerry (or any Left leaning candidate for that ammter), who engaged in the slander of John McCain in 2000. I know it seems silly to keep brinign it up four years after the fact, but the smear campaign was just that nasty. It'll be remembered long after Willie Horton and the Goldwater "Mushroom Cloud" have faded into the backs of history books.

Non-believer: Bashings of religions? What about bashings of non-religious? Have you watched any "Christian" programs lately?
Luigi Novi: We're not talking about bashing of the non-religious on TV. We're talking about such behavior here, and when you say here that "Christians should take a step back and look at how ridiculous their religion is," and "It's superstitious nonsense," and "Enjoy your fairytales," that seems pretty close to violating Phil's rules. Should fundamentalists come here and post the same vitriol, we would react in the same way.

Mike, Non-believer seems to be talking about fundamentalists as far as his comments in his last post go. Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist?

Yes, literally; no, in the politically-couched version of the word.

And the topic, she is lost yet again. I give the hell up. You people do what you want.

By Zarm Rkeeg on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 06:10 pm (from Political Musings: The Politics Kitchen Sink: "The Liberal Media" -- A Poltergeist That Will Not Die: Part 2: Hannitized for your protection):

"Hold it, it is banning gay marrage, that is the action that the bill will do. That's not spin that's what it is, "defining what marriage is," is simply the rights intended result of that ban." -Brian Fitzgerald

I suppose if you look at it that way, yes. The same way that the rules of baseball "ban" 7-base setups, or deny the pitcher the "right" to pitch a football.
The things is, people saying there's a right to gay marriage is like people saying there's a right to cubed circles. That isn't what a circle is.
That's what the ammendment is. It's saying that marriage isn't "The union of two people." It's saying marriage is "A union of one man and one woman." Therefore, gay marriage is s valid a phrase as dry water.
So yes, I suppose from a certain position, that could be considered "banning gay marriage." And "banning polygamist marriage." and "Banning Incestual marriage."
Any deffinition can be seen as "exclusivist." But that's only because it states what something IS. So yes, all of the things that AREN'T would feel excluded, but that doesn't equal an attempt to ban them.
It seems to me that with all of this debate over marriage, there needs to be a deffinition of what marriage IS. You can't say 'this group is included in so-and-so' or 'the government should recognize so-and-so,' if nobody knows what so-and-so really means. Thus, a deffinition for marriage.
I don't know if I'm putting this into words very well, but I would contend that (as opposed to your last sentance above,) the 'ban' would be a result of the deffinition, not vice-versa, and secondarily, there is no 'ban' on a made-up or non-exsistant right. Just like nobody's trying to ban your right to using a penny as 10 cents of legal tender, because a penny is 1 cent. That's just what it IS.


But that's what I'm saying. How many times has anybody even had a chance to explain any of that? How many times has a news station really tried to give equal time to both points of view? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but if you look at it closely, the news is almost always biased towards one side of the argument. And more often than not, it's the side "on the left."

However marriage is defined, you must justify this definition, since your definition that "marriage is between a man and a woman" is no more valid than my writing in capitals, italics, AND bold that marriage IS between an igneous rock and an oak tree.

There are three parts to a complete marriage:

• A covenant between the participants. This is ususally a public proclamation, and often includes a religious cremony. This is actually not part of a legal marriage, nor, because of the religious overtones, can it be because of the separation of Church and State.

• The sexual aspects. Again the government is not allowed to interfere one way or another with this aspect. In this case it's because of Supreme Court decisions about the sanctity of privacy in the a person's bedroom (provided both participants are adults and neither is being abused*.

• The legal contract. This is the only part of a marriage that the government can oversee. Because it must be neutral to the spiritual aspects of a marriage, and it is not allowed to snoop on the the marriage bed, a legal marriage is only the contract.


Since it is forced to consider the marriage to be only the contract, it has to consider it "only a contract." That is, any laws or court decisions that affect how it administers other contracts applies equally to the marriage contract.

The government has certain classes of distinction that are not allowed to be the basis for discrimination. These include race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age (once the initial age of majority has been reached) and sexual orientation. Because of this, Massachusetts' highest court has determined that that state must allow same-sex marriage. Based on that precedent, it is quite possible that the SCOTUS will also rule that way if the issue comes before it.

The only way to "trump" SCOTUS is with an Amendment to the Constitution. That is the only reason that there is a push to pass it.

For more than two hundred years, the country has gotten by without "clearly defining marriage"; Christendom has gotten by for more than two thousand years. To claim that it is not being pushed just to keep same-sex partners from benefiting from this civil contract is disingenuous.

*This condition is not just words and is why there no "slippery slope" to allow pedophilia and other harmful practices as valid marriages. In domestic abuse, pedophilia and child porn cases SCOTUS has ruled that the harm to the victims allows, indeed demands that the government can pierce these rights to privacy.

So yes, I suppose from a certain position, that could be considered "banning gay marriage." And "banning polygamist marriage." and "Banning Incestual marriage."

Oh, the government has passed laws to do exactly that. don't act like polygamist and incestual marriage have never been condoned in our past. Once upon a time Utah allowed polygamist marrage but than the federal government passed a law banning polygamist marrage on a federal leval, so that no states could make laws that say otherwise.

Same with incest, in some other cultures first cousins are allowed to marry and it's considered normal, but here in the US we have a ban on that.

That's what this is, a federal law banning gay marrage so that no state can make a law that allows marrage of 2 people of the same gender.

And once more, I ask... without invoking the Bible... WHY???? What is the basis for such a ban?

Because the people of those particular states do not wish to have gay marriage within their boundaries (note: I have never been for a federal ban).

There is one benefit to predatory men with today's regulations against homosexuality in the military. Many men pressure female soldiers into having sex or they threaten to accuse them of being lesbians. If homosexuality were allowed, these women could just knee those jerks in the crotch!

And the reason they don't want them is...? (Without invoking, as Scott asks, the Bible?)

"First, we kill all the lawyers."

Brian Fitzgerald: Same with incest, in some other cultures first cousins are allowed to marry and it's considered normal, but here in the US we have a ban on that.
Luigi Novi: Just out of curiosity, when was that law enacted? I ask, because Albert Einstein’s second wife was his first cousin, and FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt were cousins (first, IIRC). Was this law enacted after this, or did they just defy the law, and no one ever cared to do anything about it?

"Because if I can't have a nice young hot gay boyfriend, nobody else is going to have one, either?"

I believe FDR and Eleanor were second cousins.

Not to be anal, but is there some reason why the people themselves (not the State or federal government) can't make laws on the basis of their religion? If I recall, the Lemon test only refers to a state or national governing body.

Because by definition, the People *ARE* the government, and the government enforces those laws.

Thus by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the people can't vote into effect religious laws.

Actually, Scott, I think they probably could, if the language of the law itself is religiously neutral and the law does not violate any esablished constitutional restrictions. After all, it is because of their religious beliefs that many people agree that murder and theft are wrong. But that does not automatically mean that they should.

There is nothing wrong with the people using there religious convictions (as the underlying basis of their "moral compass") to judge what is right or wrong. But when they are deciding laws that will affect others, there needs to be a statement of why the law is necessary that is clear and persuasive.

For murder and theft laws one can argue "enlightened self interest" and give objective here and now reasons for the laws that are not the same as the original religious convictions.

If there is in your city a large community of devout fundamentalist muslims (or of Amish, Rama Krishnas, or whatever) and they felt it necessary to adopt a particular dress code for themselves they are free to do so. But if they decide to enact a law imposing that dress code on the city as a whole, they need to be able to explain the reasons to those citizens in the rest of the city's communities. And because it is the government that will be enforcing the law, the explanation cannot rely on the original religious conviction, which the rest of the city does not share.

Let's say that in this Muslim city, one of the Muslims proposes a law, gets the necessary signatures, and it is ratified through the city council. Does the fact that this dress code law was made sheerly because of the Muslim beliefs on dress render the law illegal? In my opinion, no.

That's why I disagreed with Scott. The law may be legal, but that does notmake it right for them to "push" it through. If I lived in that city, I would obey that law as long as it was on the books, but i would be very vocal about my opposition to it.

MikeC, if that city were in the US it would be rendered illegal because even if Muslims were in the majority people of other faiths would still be living/working in the city and should not have to be subjected to such things, and here in the US we don't legaly set up "the christian community", "the Jewish commuinity", and "the Muslim community" where no one else is allowed to enter. Same reason Christians don't can't get the local school to lead the children in a christian prayer before school even if christians are in the majority.

"should not have to be subjected to such things"

You are confusing "should not" with "cannot."

Yesterday, one of the most outspoken opponents of same-sex marriage publicly appologized: Rev Jimmy Swaggart after stating that he would assault any gay man who made a romantic pass at him. It wasn't even amusing, apparently he hasn't looked in the mirror recently. The last time I heard anything so ridiculous was when Zsa Zsa Gabor expressed concern about being raped by lesbians in prison.
But seriously, this religious bigot has been a very vocal opponent of same sex marriage just like another born-again bigot: G.W. Bush. The two are alike in another way (other than both claim to talk with God). Both consider same-sex marriages to be a danger to heterosexual marriages and both have cheated with hookers (and in Swaggart's case, with a $15 hooker while prowling about in his Jaguar). It seems that those with guilty consciences pretend to be the most pious.
Yesterday, the State Department added Saudi Arabia to its list of religiously intolerant countries. Maybe they should add G.W. Bush to a new list for the "intolerant religious".

The Rev. Swaggart is a moron, but that was proven a long time ago. Got any credence for the hooker claim that isn't named Kitty Kelly?

Swaggart and Bush can attack same-sex marriages, but unlike them, I've never heard of any lesbian spouses using hookers. As for the matter of same-sex couples, on my street (six houses down) there is a same-sex male couple. I've never seen them bother anyone. I can't say the same for the straight men on my street. If I see one more middle aged man turn around to check-out the ass of a fourteen year old girl in tight jeans, I think I'm going to throw up.

Actually Swaggart threatened to kill any gay man who made a pass at him, and then "tell God he died". And this is a man with a televised ministry. The worst part in all of this is that this is taking place in the context of a Louisiana vote to ban same-sex marriage. That Neanderthal has actually influenced voters with his hate. As said before, religion has been the primary source of hate against gay people.

No, ignorance has been the primary source of hate against gay people.

I'm actually going to go with a combination of the two. There's nothing better for keeping people ignorant than an uninformed religious belief.

By the way, if anyone's curious, Louisiana approved that amendment with 78% of the vote. I seriously doubt that Jimmy Swaggart swung the election. (I should also note that fewer than 800,000 people voted in that election, which is just pathetic. I paid an exorbitant sum to have my absentee ballot express mailed back to Baton Rouge so it would get there in time, and I knew my vote wasn't really going to count. Nobody else has any excuse.)

I also believe that Rudy Guiliani's first wife was also a (third) cousin of his.

Don't worry about the Louisiana vote anyway. Thanks to our current judicial system, the will of the people doesn't mean Squat anymore. A judge overturned it.
(Makes you wonder how long it'll be untill the judges are overturning any votes for their opponents in an election year, too...)

A gay bashing homo? That's a new one.

The will of the people is expressed through a democratic process. In the democratic process, the amendment won 78% of the vote FOR in the general election. Doesn't that disturb you that one man can deny the will of 78% of the voting electorate?

Also, I find it ironic that "Dude" counsels us to get over a loss while he is still harping over the 2000 election in PM. Take your own advice, sir.

And in the 1860s, the "Will of the People" would probably have been that "n-words can't vote". Your point?

The Constitutiona and the Judiary are there to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority".

So blacks couldn't vote in the 1860s. That was wrong. The people rectified this with an amendment. So the will of the people was that blacks could vote.

(Makes you wonder how long it'll be untill the judges are overturning any votes for their opponents in an election year, too...)

That's funny comming from a supporter of Bush 2000. Also it was struck down because it did not follow the rules for how an amendment works in Louisania. Same as the "under God" rulling out west. The court didn't rule that "under God" should stay or go, just that they didn't have jurisdiction because the guy who brought the suit was not the custodial parent of his daughter, and hence had no standing to bring the suit in the first place.

MikeC: So blacks couldn't vote in the 1860s. That was wrong. The people rectified this with an amendment. So the will of the people was that blacks could vote.

MikeC, I would be careful here, because you seem to be saying that if the will of the people had been that blacks should continue to be denied the vote, that would be okay too. That blacks could not vote would be wrong regardless of whether "the people" approved of it or not. If we start defining right and wrong simply by the popular vote, we very shortly lose touch with any kind of reality.

Yes, Matt, blacks being unable to vote would be wrong regardless of whether the people approved of it or not. But in a legal sense, I think it needed the people's approval for full legitimacy. I am leery about having one arbiter or group of arbiters declare for the people what is right and wrong...because they can be dead wrong just as much as we can (Plessy v. Ferguson, anyone?).

Brown vs. Board of Ed of Topeka, Kansas?

Brown did not change law; it forced schools to actually start obeying the law.

No, Mike, at the time, under Plessy v. Ferguson, "Separate but Equal" was the law. Brown v. Board of Ed. changed that.

MikeC: But in a legal sense, I think it needed the people's approval for full legitimacy.

I suppose, then, that sodomy still ought to be illegal in the states that had laws against it, since that, too, was a decision made by the Supreme Court and not by a direct popular vote.

Brown v. Board of Education basically said that the schools actually needed to be "equal"--that separate invariably led to inequality. Either way, I'm not sure if it works as an analogy--the Court was correcting an error that it itself had made.

MikeC: Brown v. Board of Education basically said that the schools actually needed to be "equal"--that separate invariably led to inequality. Either way, I'm not sure if it works as an analogy--the Court was correcting an error that it itself had made.

Then I must ask you, what is the point of having an independent federal judiciary, if not to rein in the excesses of "the people?" At their worst, the courts have done evil, just as any human institution. (The Supreme Court found nothing unconstitutional about the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II, for example.) But if you take the position that the courts should never act against the will of the people (expressed not directly by the people, but through their elected representatives, I might add), then why should we bother to have a judiciary?

Good question. I like the basic ideal of the federal judiciary, the trouble is that the body that we are entrusting to rein in the excesses of the people, are just people as well, with their own biases, personal opinions, and cultural backgrounds. I would prefer to see more judicial restraint, but it's tough to quantify exactly what the courts should do. Obviously, there are times where the courts must deny the will of the people through their representatives, but I'm just leery of mass changes taking place on the basis of one person's opinion (in a 5-4 opinion). For instance, what if Bush appoints 2-3 conservative judges, who reverse Roe v. Wade or Lemon v. Kurtzman or whatever? Would that disturb you (no matter if you agree with the decisions or not) that through political appointments and one person's opinion, years and years of legal precedence would vanish?

We should make robot judges.

MikeC: For instance, what if Bush appoints 2-3 conservative judges, who reverse Roe v. Wade or Lemon v. Kurtzman or whatever? Would that disturb you (no matter if you agree with the decisions or not) that through political appointments and one person's opinion, years and years of legal precedence would vanish?

Well, I don't think anyone's on their way to overturning Lemon, though I could be wrong. I would be unhappy if those decisions were reversed, but I understand that these are the consequences when you agree to live in the society we've established. Something like this jurisdiction-stripping scheme is just very subversive to me. It's a public statement by members of Congress that they're out to change the implicit contract (heck, it's not even terribly implicit in this case) that allows us to function as a people. And I worry about the extremes to which this could be taken. Congress can't pass ex post facto laws or bills of attainder, but you could do some really nasty stuff by limiting the jurisdiction of the courts. It seems to me that the only way to prevent this abuse of power is not to exercise that particular power.

I'm also not sure that one person making law for an entire nation is a bad thing, but I'm not nearly so down on monarchy as most people. I do think there's something to be said for a final decision on a controversial issue coming down to one person. If you put it to a popular vote, and it got down to a fraction of a percent split, would that be any better? There are times when someone *has* to act, for good or ill, in order to avoid some kind of national paralysis.

But that's undemocratic. (Sometimes I wonder if there's an extra passage in the book of Exodus that I somehow missed, where G-d hands down a third tablet with the Preamble to the Constitution on it. Such is the public devotion in this country to popular democracy.)

MikeC: Would that disturb you (no matter if you agree with the decisions or not)?
Luigi Novi: I would disagree with the decisions (in the case of the first, because of my personal conclusions about abortion, and in the case of the second, both because of my personal conclusions and because of constitutionality of the law that original ruling struck down), but I would not be bothered by the mere power of the judges to do so, particularly if it were Supreme Court Justices who made this ruling.

Interesting points, Matthew. And I do think Congress' scheme to strip the Court's power was wrong; I think ultimately the solution comes out of judicial self-restraint, not out of a reworking of the system.

I have gay friends. Do I think what they are doing is wrong, yes, but so is that lustful thought i had about that hot girl i saw walking down the street yesterday.

i can get along with people that are gay even though i dont agree with what they do. During the summer when i worked on the road comission i had to get along with people who got smashed every night and had alot of premarital sex (which are on the same level of wrong in my book). I got along with them just fine.

Here is why i can act like I do. Everyone is a sinner, we've all commited things that I would view as wrong, it's not my place to judge or even condem people, it's my job to love them. Derrick Vargo in "Unconstitutional" thread

OK then, lets look at a law where both the straight and the gay are equally wrong. If you can agree that the law as it is now is unfairly discriminatory, I'll feel that we're finally making some headway.

Stautory Rape has strong penalties because it is aimed at pedophiles. Most states Statutory Rape laws have a "Romeo and Juliet" clause for cases of consensual sex where one partner is just below the the legal age of consent and the other is just above legal adulthood.

In Kansas, a pedophile can recieve a twenty year sentence for statutory rape, but an eighteen-year old charged under the "Romeo and Juliet" clause faces a maximum of only fifteen months, but only if the minor is the opposite sex.

There is a young man named Matt Limon who is serving a seventeen year sentence because shortly after turning 18 he talked a 14 year-old into fellating him. If the 14 year-old had been a girl, he would not have been sentenced to more than 15 months.

[T]he State has created two different sets of punishments for the same criminal acts based on the sexual orientation of the person who commits the crime. This type of classification violates the core principles underlying the promiseof equal protection.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that a state shall not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const., Amend. XIV. At its most basic level, the Equal Protection Clause means that a state may not establish a classification in order to harm or to express disapproval of the group burdened by the law.

The guaranty of “equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). The State has violated that pledge by establishing different and unequal laws that irrationally discriminate against lesbian, gay and bisexual teenagers. ACLU amicus brief

Yes, i would feel that that case is unfair...but i dont see that as headway. Perhaps something that we agree on perhaps? Something that show's i'm not a "KILL ALL GAYS!" kind of conservative perhaps?

Well, that's half the battle. You agree that fairness and the Fourteenth Amendment mean "that that a state may not establish a classification in order to harm or to express disapproval of the group burdened by the law." And that "[t]he guaranty of 'equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.'"

Now all we have to do is get you to see that civil marriage is a legal instrument, a civil contract, in which two people (of sound mind and over the age of consent) entrust one another with various legal privileges and obligations, and enter into a partnership to which the state give certain additional benefits. Any other meaning that the couple invests in the marriage is beyond the State's power to recognize or regulate.

Just as the clause in Kansas' "Romeo and Juliet" law limiting its benefits to couples of the opposite sex "violates the core principles underlying the promise of equal protection," so does the proposed amendment to limit the benefits of civil marriage to couples of the opposite sex.

For a same-sex couple to approximate the conditions of the marriage contract, they have to enter into several different and expensive contracts, and even then they still would not get the extra benefits bestowed by the State. Therefore, they are "burdened by the law."

The marriage amendment would, whatever the stated intentions of its sponsers, have the effect of "establish[ing] a classification in order to harm or to express disapproval of the group burdened by the law."

I understand that your religion forbids homosexual practices, so does mine. I understand that because of your religion your religion, you do not believe that homosexual unions are good for society. But your religion is not their religion. Although our religions can and should influence our political positions, we need to respect others' religions and even their anti-religious views in the political arena, where freedom of religion applies just as much to them as it does to us.

I believe that adultery is wrong, not only because my religion forbids it, but because it clearly violates destroys families and hurts innocent victims. Yet, even if we ever succeeded in criminalizing adultery, we still would not deny them the right to enter into a civil marriage contract.

Let's not forget that from the 1920s to the 1970s, these same Right Wing Christian groups tried to blame the Theory of Evolution for the "moral decline" of society, so we really shouldn't be giving these people any credibility.

We really can't expect anything progressive coming out of Jimmy Swaggart country (rural Louisiana). Bush (though not as extreme as Putin) is also trying to limit freedoms.

The majority of judicial candidates have proven track records where they put precedent, the clear wording of the law in question, and of the Constitution above their own politics before the review committee submits their names to the president for consideration. The Senate has an "advise and consent" role and if the opposition party believes that a candidate is too partisan they can make the nomination process too "hot" for the candidate (Judge Bork). Also, once removed from the political patronage system, many judges feel freer to rule according to their consciences rather than serve the party line (Some of Nixon's appointees were responsible for many "liberal" decisions.)

Still, as you say, the system is flawed because they are only individual human beings. However, whatever system we went with would be similarly flawed because it would ultimately rest on the opinions of individual flawed human beings