I'm going to start by repeating one of the paragraphs quoted in the United First Parish Church article:

‘‘It’s a shame that this could happen right there at the burial ground of great patriotic leaders like John Adams and others,’’ Mineau said. ‘‘I’m sure they are rolling over in their graves.’’

Mr. Mineau seems to view the members of UFP Church to be interlopers who have taken over a sacred site. They are, however, the same congregation, in unbroken succession, to which the Adamses and the Hancock belonged. The church was Unitarian when Adams was a member, and the Unitarians were always progressive in the defense of civil rights and civil liberties.

If Mr. Mineau truly believes that John Adams is rolling over in his grave because of UFP Church's stand, he is woefully, and perhaps even willfully ignorant.

John Adams was, first and foremost, a champion of equal treatment and equal protection under the law. He took on the defense of the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre, knowing that he would lose all his other clients; knowing that he would not see even a portion of any reasonable fee; knowing that he was placing himself and his family in physical danger. Because it was the right thing to do. Because those men deserved a fair trial, based on the facts of the case. Facts that were not as cut and dry as the rabble-rousers orating in the streets wanted the people to believe.

And that's what he said in his summation to the jury: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

John Adams' greatest fear was the loss of individual liberties. In this light, he was concerned about one man (or one narrow political faction) seizing power and curtailing liberty. "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."

He was concerned about the possibility of amending the constitution to curtail liberty: "But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

He was concerned about mob mentality over-riding justice: "The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties is not true. They are the worst conceivable, they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body."

If one side or the other in this debate has John Adams rolling over in his grave, it is not the UFP Church.

Here's something that happened less than five miles north of the town I live in.

Lily McBeth, one of the substitute teachers, a seventy-one year old retired sales executive took a few months off to complete her gender reassignment. A month ago, she re-applied to the school board, ready to return to teaching. And was approved.

At the next public meeting of the board, last night, a hoard of angry parents, stirred up by a full page add in the local paper, protested. They tried to intimidate the board to back down and fire McBeth. The board stood by its guns, and McBeth will remain in the substitute rotation.

The story as reported in today's Philadelphia Inquirer and two stories from Friday's and yesterday's editions of the Atlantic City Press, written before the "debate": Friday, Monday

I hope you've seen what Ohio State Senator Robert Hagan did...it's brilliant. In response to the GOP's anti-gay adoption measures, he plans to introduce legislation of his own. According to Hagan, "credible research" shows that adopted children raised in GOP households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities". Hagan admits he has as much scientific evidence as the anti-gay GOP does...none!

Yes, I mentioned Sen. Hagan's bill on Saturday on Board 7. And encouraged NitC's Ohio residents to support him.

Newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has written a letter of thank you to Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, and to his readers and radio listeners for their support during the confirmation process.

"As I said when I spoke at my formal investiture at the White House last week, the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force," Alito said in the letter.

"As long as I serve on the Supreme Court I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me."

On his radio show Wednesday Dobson read Alito's letter and told listeners that their support had "affected history" by helping put Alito on the court.

.......

“He’s not sounding like a fair and independent judge,” Barry Lynn, the organization's executive director, told the Colorado Springs Gazette. Focus on the Family is based in Colorado Springs.

Lynn said the note can be interpreted as a pledge to rule as Dobson wants on key issues, such as gay marriage, abortion and church-state separation.

“This strongly suggests Alito is going to do just what he was entrusted to do - change the law dramatically in many key areas,” said Lynn, whose group, and all national LGBT rights groups, opposed Alito’s nomination.

Yeah I saw your comment on Hagan's bill. Oddly enough I have not seen any mention of it on the news here in ohio in any regards. hmmm wonder why?
But yeah I got a nice thank you for your concern and support email response from Senator Hagan's office which is much more than I got from the other's I've written to.

I guess we'll have to wait and watch to see which way Alito really will go.

Wow I got an email from The honorable Mr Husted thanking me for my support and assuring that he has no plans to be holding hearings on this bill 515. So that is a good thing.

He even sent along an article from the cleveland plain dealer involving this.

An interesting little p****ing contest has been going on in Massachusetts between the Catholic bishops and Catholic Charities over the state constitution's stand on discrimination as it has been interpreted in Goodridge and other cases. Interesting, but with tragic results.

Several weeks ago, the bishops released a statement that they were seeking an accomodation, on freedom of religion grounds, with the governor's office to exempt Catholic Charities from anti-discrimination claims for not placing children with GLBT families.

A number of members of the board of Catholic Charities resigned, releasing a statement that the welfare of the children should come before politics, and that not only did they have no problem placing children with qualified GLBT families, but that they'd been doing so for years.

The bishops replaced them with new board members more in line with their statement. Presumably there are still a lot of rank-and-file workers within Catholic Charities who still resent the bishops' statement, and who have threatened to defy it and to conduct business as usual. In any case, the new board members have released a statement that they are terminating their adoption services program rather than place children in GLBT homes.

The world was very different when Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the 20th century," said the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir and Jeffrey Kaneb, chairman of the board of trustees, in a joint statement. "The world changed often, and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and needs."

.......

"They're going to let their bigotry get in the way of helping children," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Pride Coalition, an organization for LGBT families.


"There's no good reason not to put children in the care of gay and lesbian parents," Chrisler said, citing studies that prove children raised in gay and lesbian households do just as well as children in heterosexual households.


"This will be really tragic," said Debbie Weill, executive director of Dignity USA, the organization for LGBT Catholics.


"Dignity USA is certainly disappointed that the church did not show any flexibility in meeting this real-life dilemma," Weill said. "The church agency services are important and serve many needy children, and at the same time should be offered to gay adoptive parents as well as straight parents."

Unbelievabley, today's news says that Catholic Charities might try to get out of the adoption business altogether. Such an extreme response (to avoid gay adoptions) really would reflect badly on the Catholic Church. Do they really want to appear so right-wing and out of touch with the mainstream?

Somehow I am not surprised by this. Rather than admit a possibility that they may be wrong or had made a mistake the charities would rather cut and run. How charitable and christian of them. /sarcasm.

What gets me is when people resign in protest. I know it is supposed to send a message and not be as provacative as being a stick in the arse but sometimes being the stick gets more results than being stuck.

The Catholic Charities adoption controversy has spread to San Francisco. Cardinal William Levada, who as archbisop in San Francisco signed off on 5 placements in same-sex families in the last three years before he replaced Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) as Chief Inquisitor, has sent a stongly-worded e-mail to the SF board, now that he has the clout of the entire Inquisition behind him.

It is considered likely that the e-mail was sent to all bishops and all Catholic Charities boards in the US and that the SF board is the only one that went public. Only time will tell.

There were two court rulings last week concerning the granting of access and policies against organizations that discriminate.

The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of granting miltary recruiters "equal" access on law school campuses. The schools claimed that they did give them equal access, in that they treated them exactly like they treated any other employment recruiters. That treatment included requiring a signed statement of equal opportunity to any applicants the may recruit regardless of race, creed, etc., or sexual orientation. Any recruiters who failed to sign the statement did not recieve preferred treatment.

Despite the term "equal treatment" in the wording of the Solomon Amendment, it was clear in the lawmakers rhetoric, and in the military's interpretation, that it was expected that the schools give the military the "preferred treatment" even without signing the statement.

Since Congress has an absolute authority over ensuring the manning and supply of the military, and the "preferred treatment" reading is not prima facie unconstitutional, the court had no choice but to rule that the military was within its rights. A separate lawsuit on the Constitutionality of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has not yet been addressed by the Court.

The second case is in the California state judicial system. The City of Berkeley has for years allowed the Sea Scouts a free berth in the city Marina. Recently, the city fathers decided that the berth would no longer be free as long as the Boy Scouts discriminated against the GLBT. They did not refuse them a berth -- only a free berth. The Scouts sued and lost.

Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts has agreed to call for the accommodation that the bishops requested, in the name of freedom of religion, allowing Catholic Charities to discriminate against same-sex families.

Governor Romney is preparing to campaign nationally for president on the Republican ticket. Most other Massachusetts republicans, who need to be (re-)elected in Massachusetts, where there is little voter support for such discrimination, are cooler on the issue.

The Story

I recently recieved a much-forwarded e-mail which said:

On Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.

"As I read Biblical principles, marriage was intended, ordained and started by God — that is my belief," [Jacobs] said. "For me, this is an issue solely based on religious principals."

Raskin shot back that the Bible was also used to uphold now-outlawed statutes banning interracial marriage, and that the constitution should instead be lawmakers' guiding principle.

"People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible," he said.

Some in the room applauded, which led committee chairman Sen. Brian E. Frosh, a Democrat from Montgomery County, to call for order. "This isn't a football game," he said.

Recently retired Minnesota Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz is taking pains to distance herself from long-time friend and political crony Dean Johnson, majority leader in the state senate, over some remarks he claimed that she made to him concerning same-sex marriages.

Johnson, meeting with a group of ministers, assured them that he'd been assured that the marriage law was safe.

Kathleen Blatz, my seat mate for 4 years, she was the chief Justice, you know what her response was? Dean, we all stand for election too. Every 6 years. She said, we are not gonna touch it. That's what she said. I've talked to Justice Anderson, and other justice, Anderson.. Dean, we're not gonna do this. We're not gonna do this."

.......

Kathleen Blatz, the retired Chief Justice, issued a statement about the Johnson tape and the report that appeared in the newspaper. She said, "It would have been highly unethical for me as the Chief Justice to comment on a matter that might come before the court, or to give assurances to anyone on how the Court was likely to decide an issue that might come before it. It just never happened."

There's a quiet counter-revolution going on in Asheville, North Carolina. Last month, Rev. Joe Hoffman, pastor of the First Congregational United Church of Christ, decided he was not going to perform civil marriages until he can perform them for all couples who come to him to be married. He will still perform the religious rites for any who request them, but he will no longer sign the marriage licenses as an agent of the state.

After pastors and clergy conduct the actual wedding ceremony they then have to legalize the commitment by signing a document so the couple is recognized by the government. And the government is where his problem starts- because it doesn't recognize all couples.

Marriage. A promise between 2 people. For better, for worst- till death do them part. Then- the government steps in. In North and South Carolina marriage is a chapter in a book of laws with dozens of articles and more than 700 sections. The word "love" is never mentioned, but, thousands of other advantages are.

Rev. Joe Hoffman/First Congregational United Church of Christ: "My rights and privileges allowed heterosexual couples to share health insurance and Medicare benefits and retirement benefits and the custody of children in ways that are not allowed in our laws for people who are gay and lesbian".

“As ministers we are sort of defacto agents of the state in that we have the ability to legalize marriage of couples we deal with,” he said. “I will choose not to perform that function as long as the state’s laws are unjust.”

Doesn't this unjustly punish heterosexual couples? Shouldn't these guys do something that puts pressure on the government?

No not really. There are still all the other alternatives and they get their religious ceremony, the only thing they are out is the legal paperwork. Somethign that the homosexuals are out all the time. Maybe if the heteros have their rights trampled on they will realize what they are doing to the homosexuals.

And what exactly should they do? Personally I dont see anythign wrong with their actions.

MikeC, all these guys are doing is not signing the piece of paper. At the *very* minimum, another minister at the church could perform that service; otherwise, that's what city hall is for. I question the point of essentially refusing to rubber-stamp something, because it doesn't strike me that it *does* anything, but this in no way harms anyone.

Mike -- Both ministers send couples to the local JP to record their legal marriage. They simply refuse to participate in an official capacity as a minister in a state function while they have moral reservations about the state's policy.

Matthew -- As long as it is only a few individual ministers, I agree that it affects only their own conscience, not anyone else. But if enough ministers join in, it will graphically demonstrate that the spiritual and civil aspects of marriage are two separate things. I believe that there are countries in Europe where the clergy do not have the authority to sign off on civil marriages. Everyone must have two separate ceremonies if they want both a "church wedding" and a legal marriage.

TomM,

... I believe that there are countries in Europe where the clergy do not have the authority to sign off on civil marriages. Everyone must have two separate ceremonies if they want both a "church wedding" and a legal marriage.

Germany, for example. The only way to get a legal marriage is to go the citizen's registry (Standesamt); the religious ceremony is purely for your own benefit. This is the result of the church-state "war" in the last century, where Bismarck simply took that power away from the Churches.

I hope this idea of quiet resistance to unjust laws catches on, and enough heteros take action to change the law.

Sorry I misunderstood. I agree with Matthew, though, that I am skeptical as to the impact.

"Maybe if the heteros have their rights trampled on they will realize what they are doing to the homosexuals."

So to protest unfairness we'll be unfair?

How are they being unfair? People are still getting their religious ceremony, which seems to be sooo important to some people. But all they are having to do is have their paperwork confirmed by some civil servant. A fine example of church and state and in my personal opinion should be the law of the land. All marriages should be done that way.

Constanze I like the way Germany does it. A much superior and fair system than the one America has.

And I have to agree with TomM. If its just one or two then the impact will be minimal but if more join this rebellion against evil then thigns can change for the better.

They are not so much being unfair; your quote implies a potential supporting of unfairness.

Sorry about that. I see what you mean now. To clarify. I wonder how those people who feel that they are being fair and good and decent people by denying two people who love and want to commit themselves to each other in marriage feel when they have to deal with being denied soemthign they feel is their right(ie having their preacher do the religious AND civil marriage), just as much as the homosexuals feel (quite correctly) that they have a right to be married as well.

When I first saw your statement I thought you complaining about the preachers being unfair. Right now I dont see anythign they are doing as unfair. People can still ahve their precious religious ceremony but still must play the dues to the man and have a civil ceremony. Nothing wrong with that. Lets those who dont want a relgious ceremony not have to have one (which I have read some of the christian taliban wanting to make all marriages only church ones) and lets those who do want to have one.

We also have legalised marriage for Gays for several years now; the Mayor of Berlin is openly gay (Ich bin schwul, und das ist gut so = I'm gay, and that's good instantly became a catch phrase among people); and Munich has a special gay and lesbian party, represented with one seat in town parliament.

I do find it kinda funny, in a dark and ironic way, that the Germans who used to be under the worst, most evil, government of the world has learned from those mistakes.

Meanwhile the United States of America a country who claims equality and freedom for all is making many of the same mistakes and turning into one of the more inequal and unenlightened states on the planet.

KGood, I removed your post, and am banning you from all boards that I moderate, since you've ignored my repeated warnings about your rude behavior towards others here. Do not come here again, either as KGood, or as Biggy, Fizzle Von Shizzle, Vinny, Bored to Tears, or any other alias.

R, I also removed the portion of your post in which you responded to KGood, for consistency's sake.

I disagree historically with you R; you make it seem like the U.S. has gone off on a completely different tangent than it once was--my reading of history seems to indicate it's basically the same (not disputing your interpretation of whether that is good or not, though).

Well MikeC in a way the US has but in way it hasnt. You are right I did kinda let the moment get to me and made a blanket statement that was not exactly clear or accurate but I was responding to Kgood's rather unpleasant smart arse remark towards me.

Now as to the cycle of history. The US has had a history of a cycle of repression and opression of groups and then after years of struggle those groups becoming accepted and equal to everyone else. And then things for the most part are ok and thigns are better for the most part until there is a nother group who feels it is a good idea to repress another group. Right now the targets seem to be the poor and homosexuals while the forces of darkness are still the megacorps and the christian taliban. It is just tiring as it seems like we are near one of the points of the cycle where the darkness is winning and freedom, equality and justice for all is fading and in danger.

Oh and Luigi No problem about editing the post ofr that content as it would make less sense without what I was responding to there. Although on your main board unless there was another post made after that one I thought KGood's move to germany comment was meant for me. (at least I took it as such) Either way no problem.

Last year, Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, in an attempt to undermine the Goodridge same-sex marriage ruling, dug up an obscure, never-enforced 1913 law which was designed to prevent inter-racial couples from states with anti-miscegenation laws from marrying in Massachusetts, if their main reason for marrying in Massachusetts was to circumvent their own state's laws.

The case went to trial, and today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its ruling. The decision was a 3-3-1 split. Three justices upheld the law against any residents of any state where they cannot marry. In the case of same-sex marriages, this would mean no out-of-staters can marry. Three justices upheld the law, but only against residents of states that had laws or constitutional amendments specifically banning the marriage, or case law invalidating such marriages. This means that a same-sex couple from, say Rhode Island could still get married in Massachusetts, while a couple from New Hampshire could not. The seventh justice declared that any ruling other than to throw the law out would violate the very tenets on which Goodridge was decided.

Altogether, this means that there was a 6-1 decision to uphold the law in some degree and a 4-3 decision to allow some out-of-state couples to marry. The three "middle-of-the-road" justices prevailed. The official "majority" ruling is the one signed by only two justices. (The third "middle-of-the-road" justice wrote a separate concurring opinion.

On the very day that he designated "Diversity Day," Gov Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky revoked the anti-discrimination law protections of his state's LGBT community.

"To make sexual preference the same as race, I think, is inappropriate," Fletcher, a Republican, told the Lexington Herald-Leader. "We're not going to create a new special class of individuals."

.......

Fletcher's office says he does not intend to discriminate against gay people. He reportedly rewrote the policy to keep with federal standards, which don't recognize gay people as a protected class.

.......

"Allowing Kentucky to legally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is morally wrong and is a disservice to the people of the commonwealth," said Jo Wyrick, interim executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats.

You know maybe that Blood clot and infection did do somethign to him after all. Bah feh. Oh well. The battle goes on.

More churches have decided to stop performing civil (legal) marriages, and only perform religious ceremonies, which they make available to bot same-sex and opposite-sex couples. A couple of UCC and UU churches in Minneapolis have joined the protest over the "gay marriage" ban.

The research team at the stockholm institute that last year showed that homosexual men's brains react similar to heterosexual women have shown that while lesbian women's brains react close to heteromen they are not as close.

WASHINGTON — Homosexuals' brains respond differently from those of straight men and women when exposed to sex hormones, but researchers now say the difference is less pronounced in lesbians than in gay men.
Lesbians' brains reacted somewhat, though not completely, like those of heterosexual men, a team of Swedish researchers said in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A year ago, the same group reported findings for gay men that showed their brain response to hormones was similar to that of heterosexual women.

In both cases the findings add weight to the idea that homosexuality has a physical basis and is not learned behavior

In both cases the findings add weight to the idea that homosexuality has a physical basis and is not learned behavior.

Um, given the above excerpt, I don't know how the researchers drew that conclusion (if they really did, and it wasn't the newspaper instead). They were testing adults, apparently, so like earlier brain research about possible differences between homo- and heterosexuals, finding these differences in adults says nothing about cause-relationship: are the differences caused by the people being gay and having felt that a long time, or are they gay because the hormonal differences were there first?

Furthermore, does this mean homsexuality should be "treated" with hormones instead (like schizophrenia and others, were treatment was changed drastically when new neurotransmitters were discovered, and the imbalances could be treated biochemically instead of only psychotherapy)?

The problem is that declaring gayness an inherited choice won't stop the prosecution from the fundies and homophobes any more than declaring it a matter of a person being different (I dislike the idea of choice).

Furthermore, I'm still unsure - and given the limited research done on the issue, and the short time where gays have been able to live halfway normal - whether there's really only one cause - whether it's some kind of gay gene or "Choice" - for a variety of behaviours and scores of people. As in most cases of behaviour broadly affecting many people, I guess it's multicausal. Maybe there's a genetic disposition - not a single gene, that's unlikely, but a tendency - which can be aided or surpressed depending on the amount of testosterone during the pregnancy (studies apparently show an increase of likelihood of becoming gay for third-and later-born boys, if the older siblings are boys), plus additional factors during development of character in the early years which might strengthen or weaken that tendency.
I DO NOT mean that a boy who's interested in art, or plays with dolls, is going to become gay, Omigosh, we need to make a macho out of him!!!, as the fundies think.
I simply mean that we should wait and watch for another generation or two how things develop before making any statements about biological imperatives and other things, lest we embarrass ourselves like previous generations (e.g. Doctors in the last century were so convinced of the evils of masturbation that they "heard" a shrunken brain rattling around inside the skull of a teen patient.)

I believe it was the study that came to that conclusion. And yeah it doesnt slam the book shut but it does help a bit. And more research will have to be done.

And yes nothing will stop the ignorance and hatred of the christian taliban except maybe some shock therapy. But at least maybe showing a genetic cause will help in the legal battle against the discrimination GLBT receive.

And true regardless if its nature or nurture it is still the way the person is and they should be respected for it.

Anybody hear about the Anti-Gay Marriage bill being defeated for (IIRC) a third time? I heard about it yesterday on the radio, but oddly, I can barely find anything on it. Nothing on CNN, 10110WINS news, and the only links for it that I could find on Google News for today were a couple of right-wing commentators spewing their usual lies and fallacies about it.

All I can say is that I'm glad it was defeated. The commentators I heard were talking about it being nothing more than a rallying call for the GOP for this year's elections. Whatever the reason, I agree with the commentators that times have changed, and I'm glad that the majority did not this ridiculous ammendment into law.

I don't support the bill, but how have "times changed"?

(Or were you referring to a longer period of time ago, like the 1950's?)

Time was, such a bill might have actually passed.

Yeah, I read about that from Yahoo News. Haven't heard much about it, though. I did read Peter David's thoughts on that, though. Congratulations, LN. You got him a new visitor.

Cool. You never visited his blog until now?

Nope, I surely did not. Read a few of his books (and watched the kids show he and Bill Mumy made years ago), but I just started browsing the blog a few days ago.

I'm not going to really comment on this.. I believe homosexual behavior is morally wrong, but I also see the obvious political side to this...

That being, what we knew all along... The Pentagon is full of Quacks!

Pentagon in charge of defining mental illness

The lesbian couple, who fought to have same-sex marriage legalized in Massachusetts, have separated. More here.

Wow, this really surprised me.

Why? Because Wal-Mart is headquarted in a "red" state?

Wal-Mart is a mammoth corporation which, not surprisingly, takes its image rather seriously. Clearly they've seen which way the winds are blowing.

No, TomM, because it was founded by a devout Christian whose beliefs heavily influenced the way he ran the company, and to my knowledge, the way it continues to be run today, because it tends to favor placing its outlets in rural areas (though not entirely), and becasue it's known for taking conservative positions on the inventory that it stocks, like controversial movies or books. So it's position on gay marriage surprised me.

Even so it's all still a marketing ploy, methinks. They wanna try to be everything to everybody, or at least appear to be in order to continue being the #1 retailer in the world. If Wal-Mart's serious about this then that's fine (all companies should to it) and d*mn any opponents who supposedly believe in an all-loving god but who ironically refuse to be so all-loving themselves.

BTW, the other day I was on the bus and a woman across from me was reading Sam Walton's biography and I couldn't help but wonder how much of it was propagandizing BS, either towards Sam, the corporation or both.

A friend of mine gave Sam Waltsons bio to me a couple years ago. I admit I never read it. I was cleaning out some of my books to get rid of and ran across. It went in the donation pile to the local library. I refuse to shop at Walmart because of the way they treat their woman employees. Remember that huge class action lawsuit a couple of years ago. That certainly put a new light of the entire company.

I thought the Walt Disney Company offered benefits to gay and lesbian employees who had been together for any length of time. Love us or hate us. Gay and Lesbians have been around a long time and most of us don't plan to go anywhere. The name that they refer to us has changes but that's about it.

Bajoran, I didn't know you were gay. More power to ya!

Wal-Mart could be trying to make friends in the cities. I know here in Atlanta they have dozens of stores outside of the city in the 'burbs but have been trying to put stores inside of the city and been meeting opposition. Urban areas being more liberal often have problems with Wal-Mart and how they treat their employees, their conservative position on what DVDs and CDs to stock and the fact that they often drive the little guy out of business when they open up.

Thanks MarkN.

Brian, I live in Kansas City and if you see a Target or a Super Target usually you find a Walmart either down the block or across the street. Where I live there are 4 Walmarts within a 20 milde radius. It drives me nuts because you're right they do drive the smaller stores out of business.

Sorry should be "mile".

MarkN: BTW, the other day I was on the bus and a woman across from me was reading Sam Walton's biography and I couldn't help but wonder how much of it was propagandizing BS, either towards Sam, the corporation or both.
Luigi Novi: Why? Who wrote it? One of his acolytes?

Another Kansas Citian? Awesome! Though, I admit, I'm not there right now...

Bajoran, you're welcome. The first Wally World we had built here is practically next door to Target, and there's a big controversy about building another one at the north end of town, which is only about 5 or so miles away! We definitely don't need one, let alone two. And as if that's not bad enough the one wants to expand into a Super store while the other will be one as well if it gets final approval. That could put out of business one or two grocery stores where you bag your own groceries which keeps costs down. If any store should close it's the costlier one down the street but on the other hand I'd like to keep it open because my bank branch is inside and it's convenient for me to walk there if I need to. Anyway, I tell ya, the Wal-Mart corporation's greed knows absolutely no bounds.

Luigi, I dunno who wrote it. Like I said I only wondered who did and if they were in love with Wally World, or given an extra incentive to write nothing less than a glowing account of his life and the stores' beginnings and what not.

But was it an overwhelmingly positive account?

JoshM, where from KC to you hail? I live near Ward Parkway Shopping Center. Argueably the first indoor mall in KC. Another important question still a Chiefs Fan?

Dunno that either, Luigi, since I've neither read it nor have any desire to. I was just thinking that with all the self-propagandizing BS the company's known for the author was probably in on it to better promote the company overall, which I wouldn't put past anyone associated with the company.

Only if it was a lopsidedly positive account, Mark. For all you know, it was a fair and balanced, or even lopsidedly negative one.

Shawnee, though I'm at school right now.

Of course I love the Chiefs! Wooooooo! Though, today was pretty disappointing. Trent would've won it for us.

That's true, Luigi. Since I didn't read it I wouldn't know either way. However, it's probably a book that you can always find at a Wal-Mart, no matter how old it gets, especially if it was written and published after his death, of course. And if it was then I wouldn't put it past the author to say how the company's continuing to grow and be a great place to shop and work, blah, blah, blah.

I was talking to a couple of people who I knew from the church I attended while I was a child. They asked me how I was doing and why I didn't attend church their anymore. I was baptized, had first cummonion as a Catholic but I was never confirmed. I told them because of the churches stand of homosexuals and for that matter the treatment of women. But that's another subject.

When I admitted to them that I was gay. They took several steps back and acted like I was a leper. It hurts at one time I considered these people close friends. I had actually leaned on them a couple of times after my father died and now when I'm honest with them about who I really am this is how they treat me. I haven't seen anyone runaway from me so fast since I was a child with the chicken pox.

I hope to one day find the love and commitment that my parents had. They were married for 31 years before he past away. Wy do people fell the need to jump all over me because I don't hide who am I anymore.

Next Thursday, Oct 26, New Jersey's Cheif Justice, Deborah Poritz, turns 70 and faces mandatory retirement. The State Supreme Court is expected to hand down a ruling on Lewis v Harris early next week, before she retires. The length of the deliberation for the case, which was heard last February suggests either close contention or a deliberate withholding, perhaps to give Justice Poritz a memorable last hurrah.

If the Court rules in favor of the defendants, it will make New Jersey the second state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has made its ruling. Equal rights demands some sort of same-sex "marriage," but it is up to the legislature to decide whether it is going to be full marriage or Vermont-style civil unions. I'll link to the text of the decision as soon as I can access it.

Link to text of the opinion

The decision was 4-3. The majority found an Equal Rights based right to the benefits of marriage, but left it up to the legislature whether that means extending to the couples the right to marry, or creating Vermont-style civil unions. The minority also found the Equal Rights based right, but, in addition, they see a fundamental due-process right to marriage.

A few quotes from Justice Albin's majority opinion:

In conducting this equal protection analysis, we discern two distinct issues. The first is whether committed same-sex couples have the right to the statutory benefits and privileges conferred on heterosexual married couples. Next, assuming a right to equal benefits and privileges, the issue is whether committed same-sex partners have a constitutional right to define their relationship by the name of marriage, the word that historically has characterized the union of a man and a woman. In addressing plaintiffs’ claimed interest in equality of treatment, we begin with a retrospective look at the evolving expansion of rights to gays and lesbians in this State.

Today, in New Jersey, it is just as unlawful to discriminate against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation as it is to discriminate against them on the basis of race, national origin, age, or sex. Over the last three decades, through judicial decisions and comprehensive legislative enactments, this State, step by step, has protected gay and lesbian individuals from discrimination on account of their sexual orientation.

....

There are more than 16,000 same-sex couples living in committed relationships in towns and cities across this State. Gays and lesbians work in every profession, business, and trade. They are educators, architects, police officers, fire officials, doctors, lawyers, electricians, and construction workers. They serve on township boards, in civic organizations, and in church groups that minister to the needy. They are mothers and fathers. They are our neighbors, our co-workers, and our friends. In light of the policies reflected in the statutory and decisional laws of this State, we cannot find a legitimate public need for an unequal legal scheme of benefits and privileges that disadvantages committed same-sex couples.

.....

Ultimately, we have the responsibility of ensuring that every New Jersey citizen receives the full protection of our State Constitution. In light of plaintiffs’ strong interest in rights and benefits comparable to those of married couples, the State has failed to show a public need for disparate treatment. We conclude that denying to committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. We now hold that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples.

.....

Raised here is the perplexing question -- “what’s in a name?” -- and is a name itself of constitutional magnitude after the State is required to provide full statutory rights and benefits to same-sex couples? We are mindful that in the cultural clash over same-sex marriage, the word marriage itself -- independent of the rights and benefits of marriage -- has an evocative and important meaning to both parties. Under our equal protection jurisprudence, however, plaintiffs’ claimed right to the name of marriage is surely not the same now that equal rights and benefits must be conferred on committed same-sex couples.
-- emphasis mine

We do not know how the Legislature will proceed to remedy the equal pro tection disparities that current ly exist in our statutory scheme. The Legislature is free to break from the historical traditions that have limited the definition of marriage to heterosexual couples or to frame a civil union style structure, as Vermont and Connecticut have done.

But there is another dimension to the relief plaintiffs’ seek. In their presentation to the Court, they speak of the deep and symbolic significance to them of the institution of marriage. They ask to participate, not simply in the tangible benefits that civil marriage provides -- although certainly those benefits are of enormous importance -- but in the intangible benefits that flow from being civilly married. Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, has conveyed some sense of what that means:

Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. “It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial
or social projects.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed.2d 510 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.


.....

Language and labels play a special role in the perpetuation of prejudice about differences.

We must not underestimate the power of language. Labels set people apart as surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities. Labels are used to perpetuate prejudice about differences that, in this case, are embedded in the law. By excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the State declares that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples. Ultimately, the message is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as “real” marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot have the name of marriage.

.....

Perhaps the political branches will right the wrong presented in this case by amending the marriage statutes to recognize fully the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry. That possibility does not relieve this Court of its responsibility to decide constitutional questions, no matter how difficult. Deference to the Legislature is a cardinal principle of our law except in those cases requiring the Court to claim for the people the values found in our Constitution

.....

Such a step reduces the discrimination, but falls far short of eliminating it. The institution of marriage is unique: it is a distinct mode of association and commitment with long traditions of historical, social, and personal meaning. It means something slightly different to each couple, no doubt. For some it is primarily a union that sanctifies sex, for others a social status, for still others a confirmation of the most profound possible commitment. But each of these meanings depends on associations that have been attached to the institution by centuries of experience. We can no more now create an alternate mode of commitment carrying a parallel intensity of meaning than we can now create a substitute for poetry or for love. The status of marriage is therefore a social resource of irreplaceable value to those to whom it is offered: it enables two people together to create value in their lives that they could not create if that institution had never existed. We know that people of the same sex often love one another with the same passion as people of different sexes do and that they want as much as heterosexuals to have the benefits and experience of the married state. If we allow a heterosexual couple access to that wonderful resource but deny it to a homosexual couple, we make it possible for one pair but not the other to realize what they both believe to be an important value in their lives.

I wonder if Bush will go on another 'activist judges' rant. The judges did not take it upon themselves to decide the issue, they passed it to the legislature(who probably could also constitutionally ban it) which is what Bush usually complains about when courts rule in a way that he doesn't like.

You go, NJ Supreme Court! You just made me proud to be a New Jerseyian!

Although there were amicus briefs which attacked the "Equal Rights" claim, the State's attorney in both his brief and in oral arguments concentrated on the "fundamental due process right" claim and the counter-claim of separation of powers (arguing that it is the legislature's responsibility, not the Court's to regulate mrriage).

It seems that the strategy worked, as the result is that all found for the "Equal Rights" claim, and the majority found against the "fundamental due process right" claim and deferred to the legislature on that issue.

I'm not sure, however, that the rights and benefits of marriage can so easily be divided into "tangible," which are guaranteed by the Equal Rights ruling and "intangible," which are granted by the legislature in ("non-fundamental") due process, and am saddened that four of the seven justices can so blithely say so.

The conservative legislators will vote against marriage. Given that they only have one other choice, they will certainly vote for civl unions. Many of the swing voters will also vote for civil unions to spite the defendants for attempting to end-run the legislature. I'm afraid that marriage is still several years off.

In a replay of their homophobic tactics of 2004, the Republicans are up to their same tired tricks. Republican canidates have been showing up on FOX declaring that the upcoming election presents a choice between traditional values and "San Francisco values". The FOX pundits, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Newt Gingrich are also stressing the importance of fighting "San Francisco values". Quite amazing right after the Foley scandal!

Over on MSNBC, Pat Buchanon denounced Nancy Pelosi and her "San Francisco Values" too. He even stated that Pelosi (a married Catholic with children)"marches in parades with NAMBLA".

The Republican slime machine...up to their usual.

George Bush has been quiet on the subject of SSM for most of the last year, but Wednesday's ruling galvanized him again.

Link to story

Bush put a spotlight on the issue while campaigning in Iowa, which does not have a proposal on the ballot. With the Republican House candidate, Jeff Lamberti, by his side, Bush — who has not been talking about gay marriage in recent weeks — took pains to insert a reference into his standard stump speech warning that Democrats would raise taxes and make America less safe.

....

The president drew applause when he reiterated his long-held stance that marriage was “a union between a man and a woman,” adding, “I believe it’s a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.”

IMO, If Bush wants to 'defend' marriage, why doesn't he call for a consitutional amendment banning divorce? That seems to be the greater threat to marriage than two consenting adults of any sex.

For the last week I have been at the mercy of public computers and their content filters for my Internet access. Their list of banned words is apparently far more extensive than the Chief's. I have not been able to access many Nitcentral discussions.

So I'm a little late with this announcement/reminder, and I apologize. Anyway, Monday was Nov 20, the Transgendered Day of Remembrance, a day set aside to remember those who were murdered because of the prejudices of others.

Some victims, like Brandon Teena, and Gwen Araujo are well known. Others are brought to the public's attention only on days like the TDoR. Still more are known only to their friends and families.

Not all victims who are remembered were transgendered, but they were victims of the same prejudices, whether the were transgendered, cross-dressers, or simply percieved by their murderers as "too effeminiate" or "too butch" for their gender.

Story

The worst example of a gay hypocrite in 2006 wasn't Reverend Ted Haggard. It was Ken Mehlman, head of the Republican National Committee. Evangelicals have explained on several different shows how Mehlman worked to get out the anti-gay vote in states such as Ohio. A day after the elections, Mehlman was outed (CNN and MSNBC reported it, FOX News didn't, how strange!). The next day he resigned, as it was obvious that the Republicans wanted to avoid another Haggard-like scandal. Mehlman even met several times with Haggard...must have been touching to see a meeting of two closet-case bigots, then again, we are talking about the Republican Party.

I'm sensing someone has some issue with foxnews...

More evidence that sexual orientation is biological, and prenatal.

I can't tell if the article is on the level or tongue in cheek. And I'm not sure which I'd prefer it to be. Interesting read, either way.

??? It seems pretty obviously on the level to me.

The best spoof pages are very hard to tell from the real thing. Look at some of the great spoof web pages for faux fundie churches. Sometimes they get real fundies cheering them on without realizing that the joke's on them.

As I said, I'm not really sure whether or not I want the research to be true, and that may be coloring my acceptance.

I see no indication that that article was a spoof. It was clearly literal. (What in it looked to you that it might've been humorous?) The author was also, incidentally, on the Colbert Report, which is where I first heard of it. I tried to find the actually issue, but it was no longer on the stands, so I looked for it online.

Like I said, it might have been my own ambivalent attitude toward the findings that predisposed me to suspect it. It might very well be genuine, at least in the main.

One thing I am a bit leary about is that one of the first experts mentioned is the late John Money.

I didn't know who Money was (that is, I didn't recognize him by name) until I Wikipedia'd him, and saw that he was the guy who oversaw the gender reassignment of David Remier. (Interestingly, Money died one year ago today.) However, I think it's possible that you didn't read that mention of him carefully:

The late psychologist and sexologist John Money famously called these the details of our “gendermaps,” which he believed are drawn primarily by life’s experience and social conditioning. Money planted some of the earliest flags in the nature-versus-nurture war by claiming that dysfunctional parents, not inborn biology, is what produced “sissy boys,” tomboys, and other gender variants. But today, the pendulum has swung just about as far in the other direction as possible.

So in other words, it mentions Money in order to speak of the origins of "gendermaps", and to point out that his conclusions about gender in the nature-nurture question are the opposite of what the current consensus is. So I see no reason to call the article into question, let alone to think it was a spoof.

Arguments critical of homosexuality refuted.

On re-reading the article more critically, I no longer doubt that David France is sincere. That does not, in itself mean that all of the different studies that he mentions are well established, or that together they prove what he assumes.

And right from the start, I mentioned that my own comments were more "gut-reactions" than reasoned objections

-------

Before I clicked on your latest link, I noticed that the address in on the You-Tube server. I assume that means it is a film clip, so I held off.

I have to ask "Is this safe to open at work? While you have never led me astray, I learned the hard way to find out for certain first. Better safe than sorry, as they say.

Well, the United Parcel Service has determined that the language of New Jersey's civil union law still allows the company to discriminate against New Jersey's LGBT community. This, despite the clear ruling of the state's Supreme Court last October.

UPS grants benefits to the spouses of all legally married employees, including Massachusetts LGBT couples who are legally married. It refuses to extend those same benefits to New Jersey LGBT couples joined in civil union.

Either UPS is in violation of the law, or the law fails to meet the Constitutional requirements set out in the October State Supreme Court ruling. Either way, the LGBT couples, even yet, still are clearly and illegally being denied access to equal rights and protections under the law.

Story from Newark Star-Ledger

Because there were predictions of "separate but equal" inequities if New Jersey passed civil unions instead of expanding marriage, the law also included a paragraph establishing a three year study of the effects of the law. The legislators probably saw this as a sop to the nay-sayers and a sinecure for whoever was appointed.

---

quote:

C.37:1-36 New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, establishment; membership; duties; reports; expiration.

94. a. There is hereby established the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission commencing on the effective date of P.L.2006, c.103 (C.37:1-28 et al.).

b. The commission shall be composed of 13 members to be appointed as follows: the Attorney General or his designee, the Commissioner of the Department of Banking and Insurance or his designee, the Commissioner of Health and Senior Services or his designee, the Commissioner of Human Services or his designee, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families or his designee, the Director of the Division of Civil Rights in the Department of Law and Public Safety or his designee, one public member appointed by the President of the Senate, one public member appointed by the Speaker of the General Assembly, and five public members appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, no more than three who shall be of the same political party.

c. It shall be the duty of the commission to study all aspects of P.L.2006, c.103 (C.37:1-28 et al.) which authorizes civil unions including, but not limited to:

(1) evaluate the implementation, operation and effectiveness of the act;

(2) collect information about the act’s effectiveness from members of the public, State agencies and private and public sector businesses and organizations;

(3) determine whether additional protections are needed;

(4) collect information about the recognition and treatment of civil unions by other states and jurisdictions including the procedures for dissolution;

(5) evaluate the effect on same-sex couples, their children and other family members of being provided civil unions rather than marriage;

(6) evaluate the financial impact on the State of New Jersey of same-sex couples being provided civil unions rather than marriage; and

(7) review the “Domestic Partnership Act,” P.L.2003, c.246 (C.26:8A-1 et al.) and make recommendations whether this act should be repealed.

d. The commission shall organize as soon as possible after the appointment of its members. The commission shall be established for a term of three years and the members shall be appointed for the full term of three years. Vacancies in the membership of the commission shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. The commission members shall choose a Chair from among its members.

e. The members of the commission shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties, within the limits of funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the commission for its purposes.

f. The commission is entitled to the assistance and service of the employees of any State, county or municipal department, board, bureau, commission or agency as it may require and as may be available to it for its purposes, and to employ stenographic and clerical assistance and to incur traveling or other miscellaneous expenses as may be necessary in order to perform its duties, within the limits of funds appropriated or otherwise made available to it for its purposes.

g. The commission shall report semi-annually its findings and recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor.

h. The commission shall expire three years from the date of its initial organizational meeting and upon submission of its final report.

---

• the Governor's office,
• the Speaker's office,
• the office of the President of the Senate,
• the Attorney general's office,
• the Department of Banking and Insurance
• the Department of Health and senior services
• the office of the Commissioner of Human Services
• the Department of Children and Families
• the Division of Civil Rights, in the Department of Law and Public safety

1. "no, the civil union law is not effective,"
2. "I am a member of the public with information on the effectiveness of the civil union law, namely that a private has determined that it can ignore the intent of the Court ruling"
3. "yes, additional protections are needed,"
4. "no, NJ civil unions are not recognized in other jurisdictions"
5. "the effect of civil unions rather than marriage is that the rights that the State Supreme Court ruled must be guaranteed are not available to same-sex couples
6. "the State legislature has left the State vulnerable to more lawsuits over rights that the court has already ruled must be guaranteed"

Video is safe for work, as it is merely what the posted text describes.

(But I'm mystified as to what you thought it could possibly be, given how plain and explicit I thought that text was. )

Like I said, I learned the hard way (from postings on another site) so now I never open any movie clip without first getting confirmation.

I just gotta hear that story.

Iowa judge approves gay weddings

So, there's at least one judge in this state that I agree with.

Go current state of residence!

Of course the fight is not over yet. You know this decision will be appealed. Let's hope that your state's highest jurists understand and agree with Judge Hanson's ruling.

Yeah, it's already been appealed. But that'll happen.

Gay marriage debate aside, I find it disturbing that a decision of this magnitude can be made by one county judge on the behalf of thousands, or even millions of people.

Given that thousands or millions people want him to have made it on their behalf, it only seems logical that he did so.

With respect, Luigi, you have no proof of that. If Iowa's gay marriage ban was like the ones in other states, it was voter approved, meaning that thousands or millions of people wanted it to be there. Even if it was an act of the Iowa legislature, those representatives ultimately answer to the people as well, and would have been removed from office if there was a big enough outcry over the ban. Even if there are polls which indicate support for gay marriage in Iowa or any other state, polls have absolutely no legal standing; only votes do.

The whole basis of the U.S. Constitution, and the state constitutions which are based on similar principles, is to prevent individuals from gaining the type of power employed by this judge. I realize there is probably a board for this somewhere else, but this incident is a prime example of a judge abusing his power to pursue an agenda without the approval of the people. At the very least, decisions that involve radical changes in state or federal law should be made exclusively by a group of judges (e.g. the Supreme Court) and not by individual judges.

The whole basis of the U.S. Constitution, and the state constitutions which are based on similar principles, is to prevent individuals from gaining the type of power employed by this judge. I realize there is probably a board for this somewhere else, but this incident is a prime example of a judge abusing his power to pursue an agenda without the approval of the people. ~~David(Guardian)

Welcome to the discussion, David

The whole basis of the US Constitution (and the state constitutions) is to prevent anyone from gaining too much power, including "the people." That is why the guarantees in the Bill of Rights over-ride any laws that Congress chooses to pass. The judge did not "employ" that "type of power"; he merely followed established legal procedure and precedent. He does not have the power to create new law, nor did he. He merely ruled that the state constitution, as worded and as understood by previous court rulings, forbids this type of discrimination. The legislators are free to re-instate the law, if they can find a way to word it so that it does not violate the state constitution's guarantees of equal treatment under the law for all citizens.

At the very least, decisions that involve radical changes in state or federal law should be made exclusively by a group of judges (e.g. the Supreme Court) and not by individual judges.

The judicial system is set up in the way that the citizens of the state wanted it set up. In most states, there is only one judge at the lowest level of trial, and increasing numbers of jurists empanelled at each appeals level. In a case like this, it was a certainty that, whoever "won" on this first level, the case would be appealed. You can be certain that the appeals won't stop until the case reaches the state's highest court of appeals.

I realize there is probably a board for this somewhere else,

If you wish to continue the discussion of Judge Hanson's "bias" and "activism," the appropriate forum is here.

Of course if you want to defend the marriage ban, this is the place to do so.

Luigi Novi: Given that thousands or millions people want him to have made it on their behalf, it only seems logical that he did so.

David (Guardian): With respect, Luigi, you have no proof of that.
Luigi Novi: Proof of what? That thousands or millions of gays want to be able to legally marry? That's self-evident. It's a fundamental part of the LGBT rights movement. Ask any gay if they'd like the legal right to marry, and see what they tell you.

David: If Iowa's gay marriage ban was like the ones in other states, it was voter approved, meaning that thousands or millions of people wanted it to be there.
Luigi Novi: Which is irrelevant, since they have no say in what gays do in their personal lives. Only gays do. If gays want to marry, then they should be able to.

David: Even if it was an act of the Iowa legislature, those representatives ultimately answer to the people as well...
Luigi Novi: And if what the people demand is to withhold a fundamental constitutional right from an entire group, then those people are clearly wrong, and no legislature is required to heed them. Sometimes the people are wrong, as they were when they wanted slavery, school segregation, separate drinking fountains, and so forth. Elected officials do have to answer to the voters, but they also have to uphold the constitution. No amount of prioritizing with respect to voters gives people the right to infringe upon someone's basic freedoms.

David: The whole basis of the U.S. Constitution, and the state constitutions which are based on similar principles, is to prevent individuals from gaining the type of power employed by this judge. I realize there is probably a board for this somewhere else, but this incident is a prime example of a judge abusing his power to pursue an agenda without the approval of the people.
Luigi Novi: You could make the same criticism about the judge in Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Was that decision wrong, too? Should we resegregate schools for this reason?

You can be certain that the appeals won't stop until the case reaches the state's highest court of appeals. - TomM
I realize that, but when I see all the confusion that this one judge caused, I think it would be better if such decisions were made only by the higher courts. His ruling basically threw the state of Iowa into chaos for several hours and disrupted the lives of thousands.

Proof of what? That thousands or millions of gays want to be able to legally marry? That's self-evident. - Luigi Novi
I'm sure there are many homosexuals who want to marry throughout the country. This is not a national incident, however, it is a case involving only one state. The judge in this case only has jurisdiction over his county, he can't (or at least shouldn't) make decisions on the behalf of millions.

Which is irrelevant, since they have no say in what gays do in their personal lives. Only gays do. If gays want to marry, then they should be able to. - Luigi Novi
I don't think that people should be allowed to lynch gays or anything like that, but the effects of gay marriage extend beyond personal lives. I am against gay marriage for religous reasons. If I ran a business and had to hire a married gay person, I would be forced to recognize their marriage due to health benefits, etc. That would put me in a very uncomfortable position because I couldn't refuse to hire the person without risking a lawsuit, nor could I ignore my own beliefs.

And if what the people demand is to withhold a fundamental constitutional right from an entire group - Luigi Novi
Funny, I don't recall seeing that amendment in the Constitution. For that matter, I don't recall seeing an amendment legally recognizing heterosexual marriages, either. Why don't we just get the government out of marriage altogether?

You could make the same criticism about the judge in Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Was that decision wrong, too? Should we resegregate schools for this reason? - Luigi Novi
No, I couldn't. Brown vs. Board of Education was decided by the Supreme Court, a group of the most highly respected judges in the nation, and not by some hot-shot county judge.

If I ran a business and had to hire a married gay person, I would be forced to recognize their marriage due to health benefits, etc. That would put me in a very uncomfortable position because I couldn't refuse to hire the person without risking a lawsuit, nor could I ignore my own beliefs.

What if I didn't believe in interracial marriage? Should someone's "right" to not extend health benefits to race mixers (some people object to interracial marriage on biblical grounds) extend to someone's right to equal protection under the law. Some people say that they don't want to be paying into a health care system where the money could go to married gays because they don't believe in it. What about gays paying into a system that will give benefits to straight partners but not to them. What about a gay guy's business being forced by law to give health benefits to a straight workers spouse but not being allowed to extend coverage to his own partner by his own insurance company?

OH BTW the definition of judicial activism is a judge who makes a decision that you don't agree with. If the speaker agrees with the ruling than it's not activism, it's doing the right thing. Ask the supporters of that Alabama judge who wanted to display a monument to the 10 commandments in his courthouse, even though that would be challenging years of rulings on the separation of church and state.

David: The judge in this case only has jurisdiction over his county, he can't (or at least shouldn't) make decisions on the behalf of millions.
Luigi Novi: He should if gays want him to.

David: I am against gay marriage for religous reasons.
Luigi Novi: That's fine, but that doesn't give you the right to deny it to them legally, since you cannot legally force your religious views on others. Each individual should be able to live their own lives according to their own sense of happiness, and that includes things like both marriage and religion.

David: If I ran a business and had to hire a married gay person, I would be forced to recognize their marriage due to health benefits, etc. That would put me in a very uncomfortable position because I couldn't refuse to hire the person without risking a lawsuit, nor could I ignore my own beliefs.
Luigi Novi: Your own beliefs should only dictate how you live your own life, not those of others. Such tolerance is how free societies like ours work. In order to be free yourself from the tyranny of others, you agree to live among people who live in a way you may not like. They leave you alone, you leave them alone, etc. I think it works best that way.

David: Funny, I don't recall seeing that amendment in the Constitution. For that matter, I don't recall seeing an amendment legally recognizing heterosexual marriages, either.
Luigi Novi: Funny, I don't recall saying otherwise. I was referring to the basic fundamental freedoms that guarantee our right to pursue our own happiness, and in that has included the fundamental right to privacy that allows people to live their lives as they see fit. If you want to argue that everything legal has to have its own explicitly described Constitutional amendment, and not the umbrella rights we are familiar with, then you could make the same argument that the Constitution doesn't have an amendment allowing posting on an Internet message board, and conclude that we don't have the legal right to come here.

Your point about Brown, and its contrast to this case is well-taken. I brought it up, however, because it reasonably falls under the category of Judicial Activism, at least in terms of discussions like this, since some have argued that what the Supreme Court did in that case is that.

Should someone's "right" to not extend health benefits to race mixers (some people object to interracial marriage on biblical grounds) extend to someone's right to equal protection under the law. Some people say that they don't want to be paying into a health care system where the money could go to married gays because they don't believe in it. What about gays paying into a system that will give benefits to straight partners but not to them. What about a gay guy's business being forced by law to give health benefits to a straight workers spouse but not being allowed to extend coverage to his own partner by his own insurance company? - Brian Fitzgerald
What I meant was that the employer should be able to decide what to recognize and what not to recognize without threat of legal reprecussion.

since you cannot legally force your religious views on others. Each individual should be able to live their own lives according to their own sense of happiness, and that includes things like both marriage and religion. - Luigi Novi
Fine, but homosexuals shouldn't be able to legally force their point of view on me, either. I've found that the greatest fear of most Christian organizations is not that gay marriage will be legalized, but that they will be legally prevented from speaking out against something they consider sinful. There have already been incidents in the United States where Christians have been arrested for passing out material at homosexual-oriented events.

Your own beliefs should only dictate how you live your own life, not those of others. Such tolerance is how free societies like ours work. In order to be free yourself from the tyranny of others, you agree to live among people who live in a way you may not like. They leave you alone, you leave them alone, etc. I think it works best that way. - Luigi Novi
I don't mind living among people who disagree with me, as long as they respect my beliefs and don't try to make me accept their lifestyles in the name of "tolerance". That, too, would be the "tyranny of others".

If you want to argue that everything legal has to have its own explicitly described Constitutional amendment, and not the umbrella rights we are familiar with, then you could make the same argument that the Constitution doesn't have an amendment allowing posting on an Internet message board, and conclude that we don't have the legal right to come here. - Luigi Novi
I was joking, to an extent. I do think that marriage has become too embroiled in employee benefits, political debates, and legal battles (i.e. divorce courts). I almost wish that marriage would be left to individual churches (or other institutions for non-Christians). Obviously, this will never happen, but it would end the gay marriage debate.

Fine, but homosexuals shouldn't be able to legally force their point of view on me, either.

If homosexual members of your religion try to do so within the context of your religion, that is one thing. But doing so within the larger society is a different matter.

I've found that the greatest fear of most Christian organizations is not that gay marriage will be legalized, but that they will be legally prevented from speaking out against something they consider sinful.

I would hope that this would not happen, as such views have the right to be expressed, even if not everyone agrees with them. But speaking out on something is very different than trying to legislate it.

don't try to make me accept their lifestyles in the name of "tolerance".

This sentence could just as easily have been said by a homosexual person. You're right, no one should force a lifestyle on anyone who doesn't want to. Why doesn't that include religious individuals and their views?

>If I ran a business and had to hire a married gay person, I would be forced to recognize their marriage due to health benefits, etc. That would put me in a very uncomfortable position because I couldn't refuse to hire the person without risking a lawsuit, nor could I ignore my own beliefs.
-David

What of divorce? Didn't Jesus say that anyone who divorces for reasons other than adultery, then remarries commits adultery? Shall business owners have the right to deny coverage to spouses in that situation? Or what about marriages between people of different religions? Did Paul not write to the Corinthian church that believers should not be "yoked" together with non-believers?

The reality is that our government allows many things that the Bible decries. In many ways, it was worse for the Jewish people in 1st century Palestine, with a foreign government oppressing them, threatening them, and occasionally desecrating their holy sites. Yet, when Jesus is asked if they should continue to support Rome with their taxes, he says, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." We, as Christians, can not absolve ourselves of our legal responsibilities over disagreements with the government, but must submit to the authorities that God has placed over us, as Paul wrote to the church in Rome.

Sorry if that went a little too RM. I just got on a roll.

>Brown vs. Board of Education was decided by the Supreme Court, a group of the most highly respected judges in the nation, and not by some hot-shot county judge.
-David

Except, like the vast majority of cases that the Supreme Court hears, it didn't start there, but at the local level. The Supreme Court is primarily an appellate court (aside from matters involving the states themselves or foreign governments/officials), so implying that this judge was doing something wrong simply because he wasn't on the Supreme Court is inappropriate. He made a ruling based on the law and facts presented to him. Now, it will likely be appealed, and more judges will consider the case just as the original judge did. If it works it's way to the Supreme Court, so be it, but it is neither guaranteed nor necessary.

>I've found that the greatest fear of most Christian organizations is not that gay marriage will be legalized, but that they will be legally prevented from speaking out against something they consider sinful. There have already been incidents in the United States where Christians have been arrested for passing out material at homosexual-oriented events.
-David

That fear is generally speaking unfounded. If the KKK can still hold marches and rallies, spouting the N word at the top of their lungs, I doubt any action will be taken to curtail free-speech rights regarding homosexuality.

As for Christians being arrested, I ask for citations, please. More than likely, all you have heard is simply bloggers repeating what they heard somewhere else. The closest I could find is the so-called Philadelphia 11, who actively disrupted an event, obstructed traffic, and disobeyed police orders. Even then, those charges were dropped due to free-speech issues. If you have other examples, please share.

Not that this type of proselytizing actually does anything other than draw media attention and scorn from non-believers. Opening with "You're going to burn in Hell unless you repent" is a good way to get someone to tune you out. Would that we could take a cue from Jesus, who sat and ate with the sinners, loving them as people while teaching them of God's goodness, instead of denouncing them as sinners as the Pharisees were doing.

>Why don't we just get the government out of marriage altogether?
>I almost wish that marriage would be left to individual churches (or other institutions for non-Christians). Obviously, this will never happen, but it would end the gay marriage debate.
-David

Sadly, you are right. Our culture has convinced itself that a marriage has to come with legal benefits, and that our government must "protect the family," despite the numerous corruption and sex scandals that plague Washington. While removing the legal issues would quell much of the debate, it would still be taking place in our churches, as some denominations struggle, and are even fracturing, over the issue.

no one should force a lifestyle on anyone who doesn't want to. Why doesn't that include religious individuals and their views? - dotter31
This discussion has actually gone much farther than I intended. My original point really had nothing to do with gay marriage! I don't think that Christians or other religous individuals should be able to impose their will on a nation, but I also think that organizations who want to campaign against gay marriage and use legal, democratic means to stop it should be free to do so. I don't want to get into why I think homosexuality is wrong and others think it's right, as a debate like that would probably leave everyone angry and frustrated.

That fear is generally speaking unfounded. - Dustin Westfall
Hello Dustin. Unfortunately, it isn't. In Canada, for instance, a pastor can be arrested for publicly condemning homosexuality in the church. While Canada is obviously not the U.S., it hits a little close to home.

Not that this type of proselytizing actually does anything other than draw media attention and scorn from non-believers. Opening with "You're going to burn in Hell unless you repent" is a good way to get someone to tune you out. - Dustin Westfall
This actually happened at my university a couple of years ago. I think I remember a handful of incidents in which peaceful, legal protestors were arrested. I'll find some links and post them here in a day or so.

One thing I forgot:
We, as Christians, can not absolve ourselves of our legal responsibilities over disagreements with the government, but must submit to the authorities that God has placed over us, as Paul wrote to the church in Rome. - Dustin Westfall
True, but the final authority in the United States is the people, not the government. That may sound naive, but there have been some truly stunning grassroots successes in United States history. I'm not suggesting that we absolve ourselves of legal responsibilities, but we can at least try to change them.

>Unfortunately, it isn't. In Canada, for instance, a pastor can be arrested for publicly condemning homosexuality in the church. While Canada is obviously not the U.S., it hits a little close to home.
-David

Not really. Canada is a whole different culture and legal arena than the U.S. I might as well be worried for the U.S. because missionaries are under threat of death in China. It's a totally different ball of wax.

Like I said, as long as the KKK can exist despite the general public's denial of the blatant racism that they preach (we can arguie about subtle racism another time), I see no reason to think that the government will clamp down on speech that has far more popular support, especially when much of the support is in Washington lobbyist's offices.

>True, but the final authority in the United States is the people, not the government. That may sound naive, but there have been some truly stunning grassroots successes in United States history. I'm not suggesting that we absolve ourselves of legal responsibilities, but we can at least try to change them.
-David

I'm not saying you can't lobby for change if you so choose (though in this case, I think it is a losing battle). I am saying that if you don't win the fight, there is no conflict with scripture in covering homosexual spouses when lawfully required to do so. Both Christ and Paul taught us how to handle these types of situations. You would not be "ignoring (your) own beliefs," you would be fulfilling them.

David, I assure you that starting such a debate was not my intention either. I guess that's bound to happen if you haven't been following the whole conversation. My apologies.

There is an interesting legal question buried here which I would like to clarify. How much power do you give to a county judge? What if the judge, say, struck down an affirmative action law, saying it was unconstitutional on the behalf of thousands of "discriminated Americans"? Is there criteria for what can and cannot be struck down at this level?

I think it would depend on the state, but in some states a judge like that would not have jurisdiction to hear such a case.

If it was relevant to some sort of local criminal or civil proceeding, or if a judge had the authority to rule on the merits of a law, such a ruling could not have implications outside the court's jurisdiction unless it was appealed to and upheld by a higher court.

A decision of a US Court of Appeals(one level below the Supreme Court) is only binding on the states that it covers, if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case. This occured briefly in the Michael Newdow case on the Pledge, where the Appeals court in California(which covers most of the Pacific Coast) struck down the Pledge. Until his case was thrown out on a technicality, those affected states could not say the Pledge in their schools.

David, I assure you that starting such a debate was not my intention either. I guess that's bound to happen if you haven't been following the whole conversation. My apologies. - dotter31
Sorry, I wasn't accusing you of that. I just wanted to clarify my own intentions.

How much power do you give to a county judge? - Mike Cheyne
I think a sensible restriction would be to allow a county judge's ruling to stand if it only applies to law inside the county, but if it involves state law, then his/her ruling should be issued as an opinion, like those issued by members of the Supreme Court, but a final decision should be reached by a higher court. To each state its own, I guess.

As for Christians being arrested, I ask for citations, please. - Dustin Westfall

Here's one: http://www.onenewsnow.com/2006/12/judge_allows_suit_over_arrest.php. I don't think this is the "Philadelphia 11" event to which you refer, as it details two seperate incidents in Philadelphia.

Here's another one. While the story is about the Philadelphia 11, an arrest in New York is detailed as well:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/07/activists_warn_against_dangers.php

Your first link actually works against your point. Michael Marcavage was wrongly arrested, the city dropped the charges and now THE COURTS ARE ALLOWING HIM TO SUE THE CITY.

As for the hate crimes legislation; that's actually a good point. Criminalizing speech, even hateful speech (KKK, Neo-Nazis, homophobic speech) is wrong. But that's about hate crime legislation, not gay marriage.

The cases cited have yet to produce anything other than publicity and a lawsuit against the city of Chicago. Combine that with the fact that everything cited has involved either Michael Marcavage or his Repent America group, it may have less to do with evangelism in general than this groups methods in particular.

As for hate speech legislation, it's yet another bit of government trying to regulate social issues that it can never hope to actually acheive. As it is, the 1st amendment will not be overturned, and any law that attempts to limit speech or religious activity has a steep hill to climb. The court has been clear about what type of speech can be limited. Any attempt to go beyond that without altering the Constitution itself is more than likely to simply waste taxpayer dollars before it is ruled invalid.

How much power do you give to a county judge? - Mike Cheyne
I think a sensible restriction would be to allow a county judge's ruling to stand if it only applies to law inside the county, but if it involves state law, then his/her ruling should be issued as an opinion, like those issued by members of the Supreme Court, but a final decision should be reached by a higher court. To each state its own, I guess. David

In many (I believe in most if not all) states the "County Couthouse" is part of the State's Judiciary. Criminal defendants are tried for state crimes, family courts ajudicate state divorce and custody laws, etc.

The majority opinion of the panel of jurists is the one that decided the case. In the case of a "panel" of one, his decision becomes the ruling.

I don't see how things can change without re-designing thejustice system totally from scratch.

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this post. Please forgive me if it is and MODERATOR if you could then move it to the right board.

I'm leabian and slowly admitting this to my family. Most of the close friends know and have know for along time. As part of this I'm currently seeking help for clinical depression as well as suicidial tendencies. My familu is clueless and believe it or not it took two friends who are police officers to finally sit me down and tell me that I had to seek help. I had started cutting myself and I still do for a variety of reasons. Mainly that I was ashamed that I was gay and I needed help and I didn't know how to ask for help. They threatened to have me admitted for an evalution if I didn't seek help. I did and it's a slow process. I nearly killed myself because no one was paing attention. Please use this as a warning. If you have a friend, family member or coworker who is starting to not act like themselves please be a willing ear. It took two very close friends to get me to admit to myself that I needed help. It's been a rough couple of months. I nearly managed to do it.

While I've seen your name around alot on these boards, Anne, I've never really interacted with you before this. That said, I hope you find your way to be strong and survive all that you're going through. Good luck.

Anne, I've seen you around too and I'm really sorry to hear about the problems that you've had to go through. I've got a very good friend who's been hospitalized twice for cutting herself.

Anne, I'm very sorry to hear that you're only now coming out to your family. I feel a bit privileged that you've been open to us for at least a year now, (and yes, this is most certainly an appropriate board for this). But please understand that suicide and self-mutilation are never solutions for depression, no matter what its source is. I don't know if there are support services in Missouri for homosexuals coming out (is Missouri really conservative, or something?), but there have to be such services somewhere near you, and even if there aren't, please know that there are people right here who care about you and your happiness. Please also understand that it is certainly possible to be gay and live a happy life (there are or have been a number of non-heterosexuals on these boards), so try to see that you can have that life too.

If there's anything else I or anyone else here can do for you, please do not hesitate to ask. And if all that entails is listening to you (or reading your posts), then I, for one, will be here. You can email me at nightscreamnovi@hotmail.com. That email is set to “Exclusive”, but I have your aol address in my Contacts List, so you’ll get through.

Take care of yourself, and don't be a stranger.

Thank you all for your support. It has come at a much needed time. Part of my problem is that I work even though it's only 6.75 an hour. So I don't qualify for anything from the state or from the Feds. The other problem is my mom is disabled and I hold power of attorney and I am joint on all her financial stuff. And trust me it pushes me way way over the income requirements for everything. I'm currently paying for my treatment out of pocket. So I will be able to buy a new car in about 15 years. So if anybody has any ideas or places that could help please let me know.

Tomorrow, November 20, is the annual Transgendered Day of Remembrance, a day of prayer set aside to remember those who were killed for no better reason than someone did not like them living as the persons they knew themselves to be.

Hey All,

I know it's been a while since I've posted. I've made some radical changes in my life within the last month. One being I've started seeing someone. It's wonderfull to be in a relastionship again. I've just started a knew job. In a field I've had an interest in for along time. I now work as a security officer for Sprint. I love it and I should have made this change along time ago.

If you've read my last post. I've stopped cutting myself with the help of a couple wonderfull therapist and I've done it without having to take drugs. Part of the problem was that I was not happy with my life and needed to change it. But I was afraid of change and that I would lose my friends if I couldn't see them daily. Well the good news is that we've gotten closer and one them introduced me to my current partner. It's a month and couting. Thank you for your support and it's been a wonderfull that nobody here judges me and let's me be myself. Hopefully I'll be able to post more often again. I still work part time at the movie theatre to keep up the free tickets. Even though I got another job I'm still a movie junkie.

Congrats on everything across the board, Anne.

I'm happy to hear that everything is going so well.

Obama vs. Keyes on gay marriage in 2004.

I've never heard of the film For the Bible Tells Me So, but after reading this review, which includes a brave revelation into the reviewer's family's history, I now want to.

I put this here, because I felt that the review, and any discussion this post creates, would touch more upon the sociopolitical permutations of its topic than strictly its merits as a film.

It's already been sitting in my Netflix queue and I should be getting it in a week or three.

I'm especially eager to compare it to Arthur Dong's Family Fundamentals. And to contrast it with the reaction of Orthodox Jewish family members in Trembling Before G-d.

Anti-gay sentiment was also a small but important part of Jesus Camp, especially the trip to one of Ted Haggard's (pre-exposure) rallies.

Maybe, if there is interest, the Movies moderator might open a sub-section of the Religious movies dedicated to movies that examine fundamentalist reaction to this and other RM/PM issues. Or if there isn't enough interest, maybe not.

I think it would be better suited on RM or PM.

Perhaps you're right.

Cynthia Nixon of Sex and the City wants to marry her partner Christine Marinoni, because gay weddings are "rebellious." Ms. Nixon lived with her boyfriend Danny Mozer for 15 years without marrying him. More here. What Ms. Nixon said in the last sentence is dead on, by the way. Personally, I'm with with Chris Rock and Law & Order's Jack McCoy on gay marriage - "Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?"

I had no idea that she was even bisexual.

She's not bi. AFAIK, she's now 100% gay. Ms. Nixon came out a couple of years ago, after chucking her boyfriend.
If she does want that gay wedding, the California Supreme Court just cleared the way.
Personally, I'm chomping at the bit for the first gay divorces. Celebrity and otherwise.

By the way, here's more on California's lifting of their ban of gay marriage.

And, Ellen DeGeneres and her girlfriend Portia De Rossi (real name - Amanda Lee Rogers) wasted no time once the gay marriage ban went down, and are planning to marry. More here.

For those who don't know, Portia de Rossi played Nell Porter on Ally McBeal.

Of course, I know her best as Linday Bluth Funke on Arrested Development.

I first saw her as one of the nude artist's models in Sirens. It was when I first started working, IIRC at the local movie theater.

Now, Cynthia Nixon is blowing off reports that she wants to marry her partner, stating that she'll do it in New York when gay marriage is legalized there. More here.

And, George Takei is engaged to his partner, Brad Altman. More on that here.

The big gay-rights related news of this election is that California's Proposition 8 passed.

*headdesk*

Demonstrators are already trying to get courts to block it.

Arizona and Florida both passed measures banning gay marriage and Arkansas (unsurprisingly) has banned gay couples from adopting.

Okay, I should probably remove "unsurprisingly". I apologize I put it there. Moderator, if you feel I've crossed the line, you can delete or edit this post. I'll just post the news stories again without my accompanying opinion.

No,"unsurprisingly" is correct. The Arkansas referendum actually bans unmarried persons from adopting, and, unsurprisingly, in Arkansas, same-sex couples cannot marry.

The first challenge to Prop 8 in California came when it was first on the ballot. There are several ways to change the state Constitution, and the simple majority referendum method is not appropriate for all of them. The suit claimed that this was one that it was particularly not appropriate for. The Court defrred making a decision until after the election, apparently hoping to avoid an anti-"activist-judges" backlash and/or hoping the issue would become moot when the Prop was defeated.

Josh, if you felt that the comment was inappropriate, you could have just as easily removed it, since your apology occurred in the same post. Since your post is not posted until it is complete, apologizing for an inappropriate comment in the same post as the inappropriate comment comes off as disingenuous.

As for Prop 8, even if it is defeated in court, it will be back on the ballot in a couple of years. If not, a prop rescinding this one will be. The initiative process, especially in California, is horribly broken. It is far too easy to get an initiative on the ballot. The result is a constantly shifting legal position on whatever the hot button issue is for today.

I don't see the comment to be inappropriate, but yeah, apologizing for it in the same post seems a bit odd. :p

1st U.S. transgender mayor.

I know the operative word during this election year was "change", but I had no idea just what kind of changes would be at the forefront!

Yeah, that's just me covering my own a$$. I personally felt that it wasn't inappropriate but saw how could be viewed as non-PC. So yeah, I was being disingenuous.

You know when looking at the last posts window I see Luigi mention the first transgender mayor and then immediately under it I see Josh's post of him saying "Yeah, thats just me....."

Not saying anythign other than I find it rather humourous.

For anyone who argues that gay marriage would somehow devalue, or otherwise adversely affect straight marriage, I refer you to this article by Barrett Brown, in the newest issue of Skeptic magazine, Volume 14, #4:

Page 1

Page 2

Note: During one test of the links, I was directed first to Adult Friend Finder, so it may be NSFW. During all subsequent tests of them, however, I was brought directly to the pages.

And the latest state to legalize gay marriage is... Iowa?

I understand that many share divergent views to mine, but I'm proud of my old residential state of 5 years. Or proud of its supreme court anyway.

Unless it's struck down. Which would stink. IMHO, of course.

Well, a bill to include same-sex couples in the Maine's civil marriage laws has been passed in the state's senate. It still needs to be passed in the lower house and then signed by the governor (who, in the past has opposed the idea, but who has been claiming lately to be keeping an open mind) before it becomes law, but it's a step in the right direction.

Looks like it's been passed.

Jon Stewart on gays in the military. He gets into that at around 2:50 into this video. He talks about an Iraq War veteran who's fluent in Arabic who was recently discharged for admitting that he's gay. In fact the US military has discharged 12,000 people (including 54 Arabic translators) for admitting that they are gay since 1993 when the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was introduced.

So in the War on Terror (TM) our government's position is that it's OK to waterboard a prisoner 80 times but the guy who can actually understand what that prisoner is saying can not have a boyfriend. Not only that but the military is using the Stop Loss program to force soldier's who's hitch is up to serve longer but they want no part of the 12,000 people who they forced out because they are into the wrong kind of sex.

It's interesting about the double standard in the media. The left-wing media is always complaining about "homophobia". The media never covers homosexuals' nonstop assault on straight America. The homosexual contest judge Perez Hilton's attack on Miss California was typical. He called her a b*tch, a c*nt, and an a**hole. Not only was the left fine with that, left-wing smear merchants saw it as an excuse to viciously attack the young woman (who held the same view as Obama on the the issue of gay marriage). Even the sight of her in her white bikini couldn't melt their cold hearts. Hate is the order of the day on the left. Another example: the ugly lesbian Sandra Bernhard said that she wished Sarah Palin would visit New York and be gang-raped by black men. An interesting example of homosexual ethics, or in other words, their typical hate.

\wikipedia{[citation needed]}

Document claim about Sandra Bernhard.

Bernhard indeed made such a joke in her stage act last year. I remember it distinctly. The first search result with Google turned up this Daily News story.

It was tasteless, yes, but a joke, and not a literal statement of her wishes. I'm neither defending nor condemning Bernhard, as I've never cared for her comedy, but even George Carlin and Sarah Silverman made jokes about rape too.

I don't see Bernhard's comments as a gay assault, but rather more of an example of tasteless humor. David Letterman, after all, raised a stir with his own humor about Palin and he can hardly be seen as an example of gay hate.

The Perez Hilton thing, on the other hand, bothered me. While I do not completely agree with Carrie Prejean and she has since demonstrated behavior that seems lacking in character, I thought her response at the Miss USA awards was fine. It was her own belief, perhaps somewhat unartfully expressed, but it did not justify Hilton's comments about her. However, I don't know if the left was "fine" with that as I read articles from both sides of the spectrum criticizing Hilton.

Yeah, I mean, as much as I'm for gay marriage, Perez Hilton came off as a complete self-righteous douchebag, and Prejean came off as the victim, even given her inarticulate "opposite marriage" response. Judges are not supposed to ask questions about politically divisive topics, and Hilton knew this, but he asked it anyway. He's a shameless, self-important hypocrite, and a poor model for liberal views on LBGT issues. While I don't know what the media response to Hilton was, or even what Gabrial considers "media", I know that Peter David pretty much voiced similar feelings about Hilton on his blog, and some of the entertainment blogs haven't had very kind things to say about him either. (Then again, they trash everybody.) Even the Matthew Shepard Foundation refused any money from Hilton over stemming from his recent conflict with Will.I.am.

Me three. I thought that Prejean answered honestly and fairly. If Hilton didn't like the answer, that's his problem.

A year and a half ago, I mentioned the case of Lily McBeth, a transgendered substitute teacher in my area. (The post is the second one from the top on this very page.)

Well it seems she won the battle but lost the war. Shortly after re-instating her into the rotation, the school board changed the way it selected substitutes from that rotation. While she did occasionally get called in, the frequency was far, far less than it had been before her surgery and the public battle.

She has decided not to renew her contract, but instead to go into retirement.

The attorney for the school board admits that "She was a very good teacher. The students loved her, and there was absolutely nothing negative on her file."

Story here

For some reason, I find myself unable to include two links in the same post.


Here is the second link

It's a spambot prevention measure, Tom.

You can include them, but only if you edit in the second link by going into the Administration area after initially making the post.

I'm sorry to hear that. I wish the best and hopefully she will be able to tutor students and continue to pass on the love of teaching.

You're gonna love this.

Doug Manchester, who donated $125,000 to help get Prop 8 passed in California (which was crucial to it getting the initiative on the ballot), apparently because apparently he felt that gay marriage posed a threat to straight marriage........(drum roll, please).......left his wife, and is now divorcing her.

Those straights are making a mockery of the sacred institute of marriage. The shouldn't be allowed to merry.

What's wrong with being merry?

oops.

DID YOU KNOW....

Marilyn Monroe had a lesbian lover?

Mariyln Monroe's lesbian lover

In my personal opinion, based on facts to my knowledge, Straight poly - ticians should pay attention to their own marriages, the church as well, esp. the protestant church. Divorce + child abuse is as high, if not higher, in such hetero- families as the "World." More Christian homophobic/herterosexist families are falling apart at the seems and successful l/g/b/t parents/families can't legally . . . hypocrits!!

That is a logical fallacy. I don't disagree with you, that politicians, Christians, and married people in general need to work on their marriages; a marriage has to be based on selfless love, not selfishness, and too many disintegrate today because both parties are looking out for what's best for them. It's a tragedy, and it needs to change.

However, that has absolutely zero impact on the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, homosexual marriage, etc. It's neither here nor there, and has no bearing on the discussion if those already married are missing the mark.

It has plenty of bearing if the people shouting the loudest about homosexuality vis a vis morality and the sanctity of marriage are those who are so poor at upholding such principles themselves.

Nope. That's an ad hominem argument.

It's like a murderer saying "killing is wrong", and someone else saying "He's a murderer who killed!!! And he's saying killing is wrong!!!! Obviously anyone against killing is a hypocrite!!!!"

Exactly. Or, to put it another way "Two wrongs don't make a right, and a wrong (in serious need of fixing!) does not make it's opposing position right."

Hmmm. That came out a little more smoothly in my head. :-)

Regardless, I don't disagree with you, Luigi, that the married world at large are very poor upholders of those principles right now. But (to take another stab at pithy metaphorism), a morality or principle is not determined, invalidated, or affected by an individual's success at upholding it.

It's not an ad hominem argument. The immorality of murder is universally agreed upon, whereas the idea that homosexuality is wrong is not, as it's the very topic of dispute at hand. If the people who scream the loudest that say, homosexual marriage is a "threat" to hetero marriage want to illustrate that idea, then at the very least, they should be consistent about it. When you notice that they don't respond to things like Britney Spears' quickie marriage to childhood friend Jason Alexander by trying to outlaw divorce, when that denigrates the seriousness of marriage, that sort of double-standard makes it hard to take that side seriously. If they really want to argue that gay marriage denigrates straight marriage, they should illustrate this by giving specifics as to how, and then explain why they do not take this position with regard to publicized instances of heterosexual marriage having this effect. Otherwise, the idea goes unsubstantiated. There's nothing ad hominem, after all, about pointing out hypocrisy.

Moreover, the analogy with murder also runs into the fact that the anti-gay side sometimes makes assertions in matters of fact, such as the idea that legalized gay marriage will increase straight divorce. If they want to make that assertion, then they should do so according to the rules of empiricism, lest they promote a pseudoscientific view. By contrast, no one would argue with the notion that murder robs someone of their rights.

It is ad hominem. You're attacking the messenger, not the message.

Disclaimer: I am a supporter of gay marriage. To be honest, civil marriage should be open to any consenting adults. Religious marriage should be, of course, at the discretion of the religious institution involved.

I'm not "attacking the messenger". I'm pointing out that the idea as stated by those opposed to gay marriage is not only unsubstantiated in itself, but that those who promote that idea themselves don't really believe in it in a matter of principle, as evidenced by their own questionable behaviors that would seem to show lack of respect for marriage. That's not merely "attacking the messenger". It's a valid point in which I not only address the idea and falsify it (see the link), but address the notion of how it is clear that the stated intent behind this idea is a smokescreen. Discussing intent and lack of adherence to an idea does not, as you and Andrew pointed out, constitute a refutation of the idea in itself. But if one refutes the idea in terms of its merit (again, see the link), following up by discussing the reasons why people may argue such a thing in the first place is not taboo. A good way to illustrate this point by way of analogy is to consider Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman's book, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?. The book focuses on how we know the Holocaust happened, and more broadly, explores the methodology by which we can know anything happened in history. In discussing the leading voices of the Holocaust Denial movement, it also touches upon (IIRC) some material that may allude to their motives. Now is this the basis on which Shermer and Grobman refute their claims? No. But it's a legitimate point, at least as a related follow-up, that should not be dismissed. Ad hominem is only a logical fallacy when you emphasize the personhood of the one making a given claim as a substitute for a merit-based refutation.

Question about one thing:

"When you notice that they don't respond to things like Britney Spears' quickie marriage to childhood friend Jason Alexander by trying to outlaw divorce, when that denigrates the seriousness of marriage, that sort of double-standard makes it hard to take that side seriously." - Luigi Novi

Don't most advocacy groups focus on publicizing their stance regarding near-term events--like ballot measures and legislation--than on issues that don't have an immediate impact? The anti-gay-marriage groups may not agree with the high divorce rate or quickie marriages, but those issues aren't really on the table right now, except for the divorce-banning proposal in CA. On the other hand, Prop 8 and the other legislation around the country are a hot topic right now. Maybe not a double-standard, just a different priority at the moment.

Just a possibility.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying, David. But the fact that things like the Spears-Alexander flap don't have an immediate impact on straight marriage only underscores why gay marriage won't either: What two given people do has zero effect on what you and your spouse/partner do. Yeah, I know you're talking about ballot measures, but that's part of my point too--why don't they put banning divorce, or making divorce more difficult on the ballot? Ballot initiatives banning gay marriage don't spontaneously appear, after all, ex nihilo on the ballot. Someone has to advocate their placement there. Why don't they do the same thing in response to incidents like the Spears marriage? Simple. Because even gay marriage opponents don't want the law intruding into their freedom to decide what to do with their lives. They simply don't exhibit the same sentiment when it comes to gays.

"why don't they put banning divorce, or making divorce more difficult on the ballot?" - Luigi Novi
I'm all for it; get one of the lousy play-it-safe politicians to propose, and I'll vote for it! :-) (People do seem to ignore the fact that for better or for WORSE does not mean 'until I'm not happy'- that would be the 'for worse' you're supposed to stick together through.)

But stating that 'this is also a detriment to marriage' (I.e. high divorce rates, etc.) does not have any bearing on the separate discussion of homosexual marriage. Basically, this is saying "They say that action A will hurt marriage, but they practice action B which hurts marriage- thus this is automatic proof that action A will not hurt marriage." That is a logical fallacy; it's not proof of anything. And it may be hypocrisy. But regardless, it still has no bearing on 'action A.' :-)

"Ballot initiatives banning gay marriage don't spontaneously appear, after all, ex nihilo on the ballot." - Luigi Novi
That's because gay marriage is a conceptual invention that does not yet exist; no one is 'banning' it- that's propaganda. People vote not to create it in the first place. People have to advocate it's inclusion on the ballet because they are trying to establish a previously-nonexistant institution. As I've said before, McDonalds does not 'ban' Watermelon Milkshakes by not having them on their menu- they have just chosen not to create them in the first place. A ban is 'to prohibit*, especially by official degree' Just sayin'...
(Unless you're referring to the definition of "Censure, condemnation, or disapproval expressed especially by public opinion." That might apply, but not to a ballot vote, just to public opinion.)

*This in itself being slightly complicated by the dual definition of prohibit as
"to forbid by law or other authority" and
"to hinder or prevent"- the second definition of which would be potentially applicable in this case; though I still disagree with the spirit of the use of 'ban' as biased language, I can concede the usage if this is what you meant.


"Simple. Because even gay marriage opponents don't want the law intruding into their freedom to decide what to do with their lives. They simply don't exhibit the same sentiment when it comes to gays." - Luigi Novi
Inapplicable. The law does not intrude into the freedom of gays to decide what to do with their lives. Again, as with the ban discussion above, no existing institution is denied them by law. It is simply the issue of whether to create a new, expanded institution custom tailored to their desires, to which some people are saying no- a far cry from the law intruding on their lives, they are asking for their lives (and choices) to rewrite the law. Now, maybe the law should be re-written, and maybe it shouldn't- but regardless, it is dishonest to claim that the law is intruding on them, rather than, vice-versa, their desire to 'intrude on' and change the previously existing law.

Andrew: I'm all for it; get one of the lousy play-it-safe politicians to propose, and I'll vote for it! :-) (People do seem to ignore the fact that for better or for WORSE does not mean 'until I'm not happy'- that would be the 'for worse' you're supposed to stick together through.)
Luigi Novi: Actually, people do get married so that they can be happy. It's largely the point of marriage, especially in modern Western culture. As for whether couples are supposed to stick together, that's for them to decide, and not you or I. No one has the right to tell someone stuck in loveless marriage with someone who's abusive, unfaithful, etc., especially if they've tried and failed to salvage it.

Andrew: That's because gay marriage is a conceptual invention that does not yet exist; no one is 'banning' it- that's propaganda.
Luigi Novi: No, it's the definition of a word. To ban something means to prohibit, forbid or bar it. Gay marriage is currently forbidden, prohibited or barred in most states, and opponents of it want to keep it that way. Where you get the idea that the word only applies to things that do not yet exist, I don't know, but that's false. Moreover, gay marriage is not only one permutation of something that does exist (marriage), and not some new concept, but it already does exist in some states in this county and in others. So your statement that it does not yet exist is also false.

Andrew: People vote not to create it in the first place. People have to advocate it's inclusion on the ballet because they are trying to establish a previously-nonexistant institution.
Luigi Novi: This has no bearing on the point to which my statement was made that you quoted. David's point was that opposition to gay marriage because of the supposed "threat" to straight marriage and opposition to straight activities that one would think would threaten it, such as quickie celebrity marriages, are different, because there are ballot initiatives for for the former. My response was that there are only ballot initiatives for the former because people bring them into existence, and that if they wanted, they could do the same with the latter, and that they don't because the stated mantra about "threats" to straight marriage is a smokescreen for the fact that when you strip away all the euphemism and smokescreens, gay marriage opponents are against because they find homosexuality "icky" or discomforting, and not because of their supposed adherence to that stated principle. Whether one already exists and the other does not is irrelevant to this point. Alcoholic beverages, slavery, and growing hemp already existed when laws were enacted to ban them.

Andrew: As I've said before, McDonalds does not 'ban' Watermelon Milkshakes by not having them on their menu- they have just chosen not to create them in the first place. A ban is 'to prohibit*, especially by official degree' Just sayin'...
Luigi Novi: And if the law interferes with McDonalds' and its customers' right to have them, then yes, its' a ban. McDonald's is a private company, and is free to offer what they want on their menu, and will decide that based on market forces. The state prohibiting gays from doing what they want in their private lives is not. The analogy is poor.

Andrew: The law does not intrude into the freedom of gays to decide what to do with their lives.
Luigi Novi: So long as it says who they can and cannot marry (and yes, marriage is an existing institution), then yes, it most certainly does, whether you like to admit it or not, and regardless of whatever argumentative trickery or manipulation of logic you wish to employ. Pretending, as a question of fact, that gay marriage is some qualitatively distinct entity from marriage itself will not change this.

"Actually, people do get married so that they can be happy. It's largely the point of marriage, especially in modern Western culture. As for whether couples are supposed to stick together, that's for them to decide, and not you or I." - Luigi Novi
My statements were tongue-in-cheek. I agree that no one but them has that right. However, they do make that commitment and a making 'being happy' as the point of marriage is extremely shallow, selfish, and foolishly shortsighted of human nature; it's doomed to fail, which is why so many marriages are in trouble. A lifelong commitment that can be abrogated when an emotional state changes is an idiotically contradictory concept. Not that it should be legislated; but if you want a culprit for the sorry state of marriage that we were both bemoaning, that's it. (Which is neither here nor there in the overall discussion).

"Where you get the idea that the word only applies to things that do not yet exist, I don't know, but that's false." - Luigi Novi
Ummmm... I was pretty detailed in spelling out my dictionary research. If you want to know where I got the idea, it's all right there. :-) And I did concede that there was a meaning- to hinder or prevent- that would be applicable to this discussion. However, such a 'ban' does not constitute denying a previously established right or institution (as I often see it used). If I incorrectly attributed this meaning to your use of the term, I apologize.

"My response was that there are only ballot initiatives for the former because people bring them into existence, and that if they wanted, they could do the same with the latter, and that they don't because the stated mantra about "threats" to straight marriage is a smokescreen for the fact that when you strip away all the euphemism and smokescreens, gay marriage opponents are against because they find homosexuality "icky" or discomforting, and not because of their supposed adherence to that stated principle. Whether one already exists and the other does not is irrelevant to this point." - Luigi Novi
I have to disagree; it is relevant. Marriage is an established and defined institution (culturally, legally any attempts to define it simply draw cries of foul from those that the definition would not favor)- a union between one man and one woman. I realize that's the crux of this whole debate, but bear with me.
The only reason that you have one issue on the ballot and not the other is because the supporters of marriage did not initiate anything to try to legislate marriage. They did not introduce a bill noting "Let's ban celebrity quickie marriages because they harm marriage," nor did they introduce a bill noting "Let's ban gay marriage because it is harmful to marriage."

Only gay marriage ADVOCATES supported a bill to change the laws. Traditional marriage advocates may well have reacted with counter-legislation, but the truth of the matter remains that the issue is on the ballot only as a reaction to one of the two so-called 'harmful' groups attempting to change the laws in the first place; the other group (celebrities) had no need to, and so it is not on the ballot. This is not hypocrisy on the part of the traditional marriage advocates because they did not attempt to change things in any way- only react to the proposed changes that they deemed harmful- and thus did not choose to place the issues on the ballot in the first place (or, by extension, to only selectively put one issue on the ballot.)

On a side note, I personally do not disagree with the traditional marriage advocates that gay marriage would be harmful to the culture and family structures of the nation, who dissolution and dis-identity in other ways is already harmful- but I don't hold to that as my reason for wanting to preserve marriage. Nor is it because I find homosexual practice 'icky' or have some innate 'phobia' or hatred of homosexuals. It's simply because I believe that marriage is a specific thing (a union between one man and one woman) that was designed as that specific institution for a reason- and I don't support making it what it isn't. To me, gay marriage is an oxymoron the same way that 'square circle' is- both are types of relationships (just as circles and squares are both types of shapes), but marriage is a specific description of a specific, unique, and specially important relationship which is, at it's very core, between one woman and one man.

Now, you may consider that a good reason, you might not (it's also an oversimplification)- but either way, it is not the simple 'ignorance, fear, or hatred' that gay marriage proponents like to ascribe to their opponents.


"The analogy is poor." - Luigi Novi
Fair enough.


"Andrew: The law does not intrude into the freedom of gays to decide what to do with their lives.
Luigi Novi: So long as it says who they can and cannot marry (and yes, marriage is an existing institution), then yes, it most certainly does, whether you like to admit it or not, and regardless of whatever argumentative trickery or manipulation of logic you wish to employ. Pretending, as a question of fact, that gay marriage is some qualitatively distinct entity from marriage itself will not change this."

Marriage is an existing institution. But that it remains open to one man and woman does NOT intrude on the freedom of gays to choose what to do with their life- it only restricts the coverage of the institution to whom the institution is defined as being for.

To venture into questionable analogy territory again, if I applied to an all-girls school and got turned down, they would not be intruding on my ability to choose what to do with my life. They would be rightly pointing at that their institution was not established for me; it was established to be utilized under certain prerequisites that I do not fulfill.

Likewise, a gay person not being allowed to marry another person of the same gender because marriage is an institution specific to an opposite-gender union is NOT intruding on their right to do what they want with their lives (except in the loosest "I should be able to do whatever I want to do because I want to do it" sense, in which case a law prohibiting Jaywalking would be just as much of an intrusion)- only denying them an institution which they do not meet the definition of inclusion for. That hardly prevents them from doing what they want to with their lives; even if what they want to do with their lives is share it with another person of the same gender; nothing is preventing them from doing it, they are just being 'denied' labeling that relationship as something that it isn't and joining an institution which that relationship isn't a part of.

If the law took something that they had and removed it from them, it would be intruding into their freedom. If it is simply preventing them from getting what they want, it is not an intrusion, unless...

This of course, gets back to the same old-same old crux of the issue. If the law is taking away their rights, then it is an intrusion. Which is where we run into the age-old impasse that keeps cropping up in this debate; do human being have the right to marry any person they love* (gay marriage claim, then the law is an intrusion) or is their right to marry any person of the opposite gender* (traditional marriage-ist claim, in which case the law is not an intrusion, and the gay marriage proponents are simply demanding a made-up right that exists by right of "It's my right because I want it!"). To determine this, of course, we have to determine exactly what marriage, as an institution, IS- that will tell us which 'right' applies to it. You note "Pretending, as a question of fact, that gay marriage is some qualitatively distinct entity from marriage itself will not change this." Well, depending on what the definition of marriage is, it may well be qualitatively different**.

If marriage is an institution of one man and one woman, only the opposite-gender rights apply, and homosexual 'marriage' would be a qualitatively different relationship from the unique opposite-gender marriage relationship. If marriage is an institution of any two consenting adults, then anyone-you-love rights apply, and homosexual marriage is simply one variety of the marriage relationship's overall nature (a.k.a. not qualitatively different).

All we have to do is define what marriage is (which we won't do because when we try to do so, whomever is not favored by the definition cries foul)- which, circularly, brings us back to the beginning of the debate again, and represents my stop for getting off this crazy train.

Have a good weekend, everyone!


*Not already married, underage, related to them, etc.

**I personally would say that, considering the nature of men and women, being uniquely different in emotion, use of communication, physical and emotional structure, and even brain makeup, there is a considerable qualitative difference between a joining of these two different, unique, complimentary-and-opposing entities into one uniform whole, and the joining of two entities of the same gender whom, no matter how different in personality, share many of the same traits in term of makeup, basic physical and emotional structure, and communications style and thought process.

It's simply because I believe that marriage is a specific thing (a union between one man and one woman) that was designed as that specific institution for a reason- and I don't support making it what it isn't.

Where do you get this idea that marriage was designed to be ONE MAN & ONE WOMAN? Throughout much of human history marriage could be between ONE MAN AND MANY WOMEN; indeed in parts of the world polygamy is still practiced. It was only through governments "changing the definition of marriage (TM)" that polygamy was outlawed.


To venture into questionable analogy territory again, if I applied to an all-girls school and got turned down, they would not be intruding on my ability to choose what to do with my life. They would be rightly pointing at that their institution was not established for me; it was established to be utilized under certain prerequisites that I do not fulfill.

About 50 years ago black people were turned away from 'whites only' schools, restaurants and country clubs being told that it wasn't for them. Those black people had to go to court, take to the streets in protest and fight to get laws changed so that they would have the right to be part of institutions that had been designed to be whites only.

Marriage is an existing institution. But that it remains open to one man and woman does NOT intrude on the freedom of gays to choose what to do with their life- it only restricts the coverage of the institution to whom the institution is defined as being for.

That's the old argument, "gays have the same rights as anyone else, to marry someone of the opposite gender" argument. You could have made the same argument about interracial marriage; "colored have the same rights as whites, to marry someone of the same race."

Marriage has been redefined by laws countless times before. I've already mentioned polygamy, which was legal in parts of this country until 1862. Child marriage & cousin marriage were also practiced in biblical times and still practiced in parts of the world today. Before the modern era marriage wasn't something decided by two people anyway. It was a contract between families where brides were sold off in arranged marriages to the other family, who had to pay her family a dowry in exchange for her. So lets not act like marriage is some sacred institute that doesn't exist in many forms all over the world and hasn't been changed and redefined by law throughout history.

How about the institute of voting? In the US that was designed for white, male landowners & yet throughout history groups like women, minorities & non landowners have been clamoring for the "right" to participate in an institute that wasn't designed for them.

Andrew: Basically, this is saying "They say that action A will hurt marriage, but they practice action B which hurts marriage- thus this is automatic proof that action A will not hurt marriage."
Luigi Novi: No, those are your words. Not mine, nor those of gay rights activists. That they practice action B provides the aforementioned counterargument that I explained, but it does not “prove” Action A will not hurt marriage. If LGBT want to argue that gay marriage will hurt straight marriage, then the obligation is on them to provide some evidence or rational line of reasoning to illustrate this. As it stands, the idea flies in the face of logic, as it is clearly derived from bigotry, and not anything empirical, and the studies I linked to above show that it does not, for example, cause straight marriage to decrease. Straights get married because they fall in love and to want to celebrate their union in ceremony. That’s not going to change because gays marry.

Andrew: However, they do make that commitment and a making 'being happy' as the point of marriage is extremely shallow, selfish, and foolishly shortsighted of human nature.
Luigi Novi: Really? So you and your wife didn’t get married because it would make you happy? Well, to each their own, Andrew, but almost everyone in modern Western culture indeed gets married because they want to be happy, and there’s nothing “selfish” or “shallow” about that.

Andrew: I was pretty detailed in spelling out my dictionary research.
Luigi Novi: You were not “pretty detailed” in this, since you never mentioned which dictionaries indicate that the word “ban” pertains to things not yet in existence, nor did anything in the definition you provided:

A ban is 'to prohibit*, especially by official degree' Just sayin'... _(Unless you're referring to the definition of "Censure, condemnation, or disapproval expressed especially by public opinion." That might apply, but not to a ballot vote, just to public opinion.)

*This in itself being slightly complicated by the dual definition of prohibit as "to forbid by law or other authority" and "to hinder or prevent"- the second definition of which would be potentially applicable in this case; though I still disagree with the spirit of the use of 'ban' as biased language, I can concede the usage if this is what you meant.

But if you can show me where in this passage—or in some other one I missed—this is indicated, and in which dictionary, feel free to do so. As is stands, neither The American Heritage Dictionary, nor Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition) nor dictionary.com indicate that the word “ban” has anything to do with whether something is previously established or not yet in existence. That is a qualifier of your own fabrication.

Andrew: The only reason that you have one issue on the ballot and not the other is because the supporters of marriage did not initiate anything to try to legislate marriage. They did not introduce a bill noting "Let's ban celebrity quickie marriages because they harm marriage," nor did they introduce a bill noting "Let's ban gay marriage because it is harmful to marriage."
Luigi Novi: They did not seek to ban quickie marriage because they know better than to start down a slippery slope of having the state interfere with people’s right to marry and divorce. As for gay marriage, obviously its opponents have sought to introduce bills banning it, and have been successful in passing them in both California (Proposition 8) and now New York. Where you get the idea that they haven’t done this, I don’t know, unless you don’t watch the news.

Andrew: Only gay marriage ADVOCATES supported a bill to change the laws.
Luigi Novi: Really? Which law was this? As I understand it, the law never specified gender in regards to marriage in the first place, which is why opponents of gay marriage seek to pass bills defining it as strictly heterosexual. Besides, didn’t you say that there were no concept of gay marriage to begin with? If there was no concept of it, how could the laws you mention have outlawed it?

“Aw right, listen up! We gotta get together and ban……..you know…….that thing.”
“What thing?”
“You know, that thing that we don’t like, but which I can’t quite articulate…”
“Well, then, how do you know we don’t like it or gotta outlaw it?”
“Um……….I’ll get back to you on that.”

Andrew: Traditional marriage advocates may well have reacted with counter-legislation, but the truth of the matter remains that the issue is on the ballot only as a reaction to one of the two so-called 'harmful' groups attempting to change the laws in the first place; the other group (celebrities) had no need to, and so it is not on the ballot. This is not hypocrisy on the part of the traditional marriage advocates because they did not attempt to change things in any way- only react to the proposed changes that they deemed harmful- and thus did not choose to place the issues on the ballot in the first place (or, by extension, to only selectively put one issue on the ballot.)
Luigi Novi: The fact that you continue to insist on splitting hairs by framing gay marriage opposition as a reaction to a proposed change in anything is irrelevant. The only relevant fact is that they want it illegal, and by making illegal, they are interfering in the rights of consenting adult citizens to pursue happiness by marrying the person they’re in love with, and treating them like second-class citizens. To do this is a violation of people’s basic civil liberties, it’s un-American, and it’s immoral.

Andrew: On a side note, I personally do not disagree with the traditional marriage advocates that gay marriage would be harmful to the culture and family structures of the nation, who dissolution and dis-identity in other ways is already harmful- but I don't hold to that as my reason for wanting to preserve marriage. Nor is it because I find homosexual practice 'icky' or have some innate 'phobia' or hatred of homosexuals. It's simply because I believe that marriage is a specific thing (a union between one man and one woman) that was designed as that specific institution for a reason.
Luigi Novi: And you would wrong, given that historically, marriage was not one man and one woman, but was one man and many women. And as for that “reason” you mentioned, well, it wasn’t necessarily for love or to start a family, but had to do with property.

Andrew: Marriage is an existing institution. But that it remains open to one man and woman does NOT intrude on the freedom of gays to choose what to do with their life- it only restricts the coverage of the institution to whom the institution is defined as being for.
Luigi Novi: That it is only allowed for heterosexuals indeed intrudes on the freedom of gays to choose what to do with their life—if what they want to do with their life is marry the person they fell in love with. The institutions is only “defined” as heterosexual only by gay marriage opponents, so this argument is circular.

“Gays can’t marry. Marriage is for straight couples only. That’s the definition of marriage.”
“Wait. Who came up with that definition?”
“We did.”

Moreover, language is a grass-roots, bottom-up human invention that is constantly evolving and adapting to societal changes, and not some top-down, fully pre-planned institution that prevents words from expanding in definition. Even if marriage did only refer to straight couples, there is no reason that it has to. It is only because of gay rights opponents want to keep it that way that they endeavor to do so, and not because there’s something inherent about the nature of marriage (or the word “marriage”) that precludes it, unlike your hypothetical all-girls school. Indeed, given how illiterate so many people in this country are, it strains generosity to give credence to the idea that those opposed to gay marriage are all of a sudden concerned about vocabulary. And since gay marriage now exists, as both a concept and a legal act, in several states and other countries, dictionaries that do not already reflect this eventually will.

Andrew: If the law took something that they had and removed it from them, it would be intruding into their freedom.
Luigi Novi: No, it’s not. The phrase is not so restricted, except in your attempt to arbitrarily assume it as such.

Blacks at one point did not have civil rights in this country. Most of them were slaves, and even after they were freed, they did not have the right to vote, to marry who they wanted, to work in certain organizations, to sit where they wanted on the bus, to use the same water fountains and restrooms as whites, etc. They never had that right. But in your made-up glossary, their freedom was not being intruded upon.

Nice try.

Ballot initiatives banning gay marriage don't spontaneously appear, after all, ex nihilo on the ballot. Someone has to advocate their placement there. Why don't they do the same thing in response to incidents like the Spears marriage?" - Luigi Novi on Thursday, December 03, 2009 - 10:56 pm

True, the ballot initiatives don't appear spontaneously. They appear because there is a debate in progress on the topic of gay marriage, a debate with lots of participants, lots of money, and lots of political maneuvering from both sides(i.e. legislation, ballot measures, court cases). The quickie marriage issue has been the subject of a lot of celebrity gossip and a few articles lamenting the high divorce rate in the U.S., but it isn't on the public's mind in the same way that the gay marriage issue is right now.

They did not seek to ban quickie marriage because they know better than to start down a slippery slope of having the state interfere with people’s right to marry and divorce. - Luigi_novi (Luigi_novi) on Friday, December 04, 2009 - 9:46 pm

Since there is no debate on the quickie-marriage issue right now, there is no way to know which groups would and would not support such a ban. The anti-gay marriage camp, for example, is made up of activist groups affiliated with the Catholic church, Mormonism, and various denominations of Christianity. Each group has its own viewpoint on the institution of marriage, and would react differently to such a ban, if it were proposed.

The only relevant fact is that they want it illegal, and by making illegal, they are interfering in the rights of consenting adult citizens to pursue happiness by marrying the person they’re in love with, and treating them like second-class citizens. To do this is a violation of people’s basic civil liberties, it’s un-American, and it’s immoral. - Luigi_novi (Luigi_novi) on Friday, December 04, 2009 - 9:46 pm

You are making a statement of opinion, not fact. On a societal level in America, concepts such as civil rights, liberties, and even morality are relative and change over time to reflect the views of the population. The amendment process is the ultimate expression of this relativity. Nothing is truly set in stone. Given enough incentive, the people (or politicians) can expand or revoke any civil right or freedom they choose. Look at Prohibition. That movement had such an effect on the population that it lead to a Constitutional amendment banning alcohol, until it was revoked.

The point I'm making is that neither you nor I can decide whether or not banning gay marriage is American or un-American, or in violation of civil liberties. One way or another, the population as a whole will make this decision. It could be through a Constitutional amendment or left up to individual states. Its simply too early to tell at the moment. Given the results of Prop 8 in California and other ballot measures around the country, we appear to be dead even on the issue of gay marriage. This could be a debate that lasts for years, or even decades, and the outcome is uncertain either way.

The fact that a quickie-marriage ban is not on the public's mind in the same way, and does not have a lot of debate, money, political maneuvering, etc., is precisely my point. Why aren't the self-appointed saviors of the sanctity of marriage all up in arms about such things? Simple. Because they don't care about the "concept of marriage" or the "sanctity of marriage", or whatever euphemistic rationales they've been conjure up to make their position on gay marriage seem more reasonable than it is. They just plain feel uncomfortable about homosexuals, and can't admit it because they don't want to admit that they're bigots who are trying to restrict the rights of a group of people. So it is with almost all bigots, who never admit that their position is bigotry.

I don't know how your statement about which groups would support a quickie-marriage ban follows the quote by me that you were responding to, as that quote is part of the same point about quickie-marriage that I made in the aforementioned paragraph above.

That my statement about civil rights is an opinion is a given, and I never implied otherwise. Furthermore, I do not dispute your observation about how laws expand or restrict rights.

Yes, the population as a whole can make those decisions, and when it votes to restrict the rights of consenting adults to pursue their own happiness by engaging in a fundamental life activity that harms no one, like it or not, they are infringing on those people's rights. This is simply tyranny of the majority, which proper interpretation of the Constitution should prevent.

The point I'm making is that neither you nor I can decide whether or not banning gay marriage is American or un-American, or in violation of civil liberties. One way or another, the population as a whole will make this decision. It could be through a Constitutional amendment or left up to individual states.

I'd say that when one side (gay marriage advocates) want to change the law so that THEY can do something in their lives and the other side (anti-gay marriage advocates) want to pass a law legislating what OTHER PEOPLE can do it's not simply a legitimate difference of opinion where both sides can claim equal moral standing.

Oh and if the US had waited until individual states decided to end segregation it probably never would have ended in many places.

Given the results of Prop 8 in California and other ballot measures around the country, we appear to be dead even on the issue of gay marriage. This could be a debate that lasts for years, or even decades, and the outcome is uncertain either way.

I beg to differ. Gay marriage is something that will happen. It's already happened in much of the western world and the majority of people under the age of 30 in the US support it. Meaning that it's only a matter of time until those people are the majority of the electorate as older folks with their older ideas pass on.

Not to entangle myself in this debate, there are a couple of points that I feel compelled to make:

1. Britney Spears did not divorce Jason Alexander, she sought and received an annulment, meaning in the eyes of the law, the marriage was never valid to begin with. I'm not sure how such a situation would lead to any discussion of divorce laws.

1a. I don't recall anyone celebrating the Spears-Alexander wedding either during or after the debacle, save perhaps the tabloids and paparazzi who made money off of the situation. There are no organizations that I know of, on any level, that advocate for this as a good thing. Few are fighting for the right to get quickie marriages and almost as quick annulments.

Same-sex marriage, however, has many people fighting for the right to do this, many more people cheering them on and quite a few local and national organizations behind the movement. Would you really suggest that they ignore the real changes that are coming over the hill to fight a non-battle over a non-issue?

2. Having a good number of friends and acquaintences who would easily characterize themselves as against same-sex marriage, I feel comfortable saying that few if any wouldn't jump at the chance to reform divorce law in our country. Most, though, recognize two core "truths":

a) Divorce has or is well on it's way to becoming an accepted part of our overall culture, with little to none of the social stigma that accompanied such situations in the past, and

b) There is little to no consensus on how to change it. Like the Democrats are learning, "change" is great in concept, but once you start dealing with the practical realities of what the plan is, you quickly find that people have different ideas on what should change. Some might want to make divorce impossible, while others want only adultery as a valid reason, while some might recognize other limited circumstances as valid reasons. Since a ballot initiative or legislative action requires those details worked out before anything actually changes, it would require a significant amount of time and work to prepare, with no guarantee of success in the groups themselves, let alone at the polls, while same-sex marriage is approved with little to no opposition. Best case scenario, they have merely traded one problem for another, or more likely now have two issues that need to be addressed instead of one.

In summary, ignoring an entrenched but stable problem, even if it is arguable bigger, to address a new and growing problem is not inherently a poor or hypocritical strategy.

They don't have to fight for the right to get quickie marriages because they already have that right. And no, no organizations said it was a good thing, but they weren't trying to outlaw it.

Exactly. Quickie Vegas marriages are part of the status quo. Even as the vast majority think it probably shouldn't happen, it still does. Why? Because changing an existing process requires something to replace it with. Unless enough people agree on what it should be, you can't remove the existing process without leaving a hole in the system. Until a consensus can be reached on how long the couple should wait and what, if any, pre-marital counseling they go through, or whatever other criteria is needed, we either stop performing any marriages at all, or we leave it as is.

Meanwhile, other changes that they may disagree with are being made that they can't address as they are distracted dealing with quickie marriages. Again, in the unlikely event that it works, they just have another entreched problem with the status quo to fix. If not, they have both the quickie marriages and same-sex marriages as well. How, exactly, is that a good game plan for them?

In summary, ignoring an entrenched but stable problem, even if it is arguable bigger, to address a new and growing problem is not inherently a poor or hypocritical strategy.

And why exactly is gay marriage a problem for straight people? I'm straight and I can't figure that one out? If me and my GF wanted to get married tomorrow we could go down to the court house and sign on the dotted line and it would be done with all legal rights and privileges in one fell swoop. Our Lesbian neighbors could not do the same thing. How does them wanted to have a legal means to do so present a threat to me & my GF or to any other straight couple who wants to marry?

Dustin, I don't disagree with your quite thoughtful analysis of why getting rid of quickie-marriage is unfeasible. In terms of practicality, yours is the precise analysis I would cite if I had to explain it, at least if I had to play Devil's Advocate from a practical point of view. Obviously, I'm not for interfering with people's private lives by advocating its prohibition. My point is simply that the stated principle given by gay marriage opponents for their position is a smokescreen, regardless of the lack of feasibility of banning quickie marriage, because either you are consistent in your adherence to your stated principles, or you're not. Yeah, you're right, about suddenly removing something from the status quo. But whether "enough people agree" or there is a "consensus" on gay marriage is a matter of dispute, and that doesn't stop them from advocating its prohibition. I don't think people who are against either one of these things really care one way or another about whether there's a consensus or not. Those inclined to interfere in other people's lives by limiting what they can and cannot do, even regarding activities that harm no one, will form their opinion and protest for it regardless of whether there's a consensus on it, regardless of whether it's based on empirical evidence, and regardless of whether it's Constitutional. Such is in the nature of those people.

Brian:

I am intentionally staying out of the main argument here, as it will take far more energy and time than I have at this point. For the sake of this discussion, let's just leave it as "they see a problem" and leave whether or not that problem is real or imagined unaddressed. I'm focused on whether not the current strategy of addressing that problem is flawed or hypocritical, nothing more.

Luigi:

Dustin, I don't disagree with your quite thoughtful analysis of why getting rid of quickie-marriage is unfeasible. In terms of practicality, yours is the precise analysis I would cite if I had to explain it, at least if I had to play Devil's Advocate from a practical point of view. Obviously, I'm not for interfering with people's private lives by advocating its prohibition. My point is simply that the stated principle given by gay marriage opponents for their position is a smokescreen, regardless of the lack of feasibility of banning quickie marriage, because either you are consistent in your adherence to your stated principles, or you're not.

So, are you saying that to be morally consistent, they have to sacrifice any useful gains that can be made by the movement in a smaller problem (same-sex marriage) to focus on a project that is both unlikely to accomplish anything useful on a larger problem (quickie marriages and/or divorce) and potentially divide and maybe even destroy the very coalition that is at the heart of the movement? How exactly is that a feasible strategy for enacting political or social change?

Should we have attacked China or the USSR during the Cold War instead of North Korea or the Viet Cong, since they were the bigger Communist threats at the time, despite the likely result being a massive war escalating beyond all control leading to, at best, massive destruction or, at worst, total annihilation, in order to remain consistent with our then stated principles? Is the Truman Doctrine inherently hypocritical for denouncing communism while advocating containment instead of World War III?

But whether "enough people agree" or there is a "consensus" on gay marriage is a matter of dispute, and that doesn't stop them from advocating its prohibition. I don't think people who are against either one of these things really care one way or another about whether there's a consensus or not. Those inclined to interfere in other people's lives by limiting what they can and cannot do, even regarding activities that harm no one, will form their opinion and protest for it regardless of whether there's a consensus on it, regardless of whether it's based on empirical evidence, and regardless of whether it's Constitutional. Such is in the nature of those people.

Yes, they will still form their opinions and protest, just like everyone else does, but unless they build an internal consensus, they won't be able to present an even semi-coherent message to the public, and unless they gain the support of the majority of voters, they can't enact any ballot measure or elect a candidate who supports their views openly. Without either of those, how exactly can they change things? Hence the need to focus on the items that can be agreed upon, at least internally, and try and persuade the majority of voters to agree. Anything else is inherently self-destructive.

I'm not talking about strategies. I'm talking about the consistent adherence to a stated principle. Again, I understand that you're talking about what's pragmatic on a strategic level. But I'm not. I'm talking about the supposed ideals that they claim informs their actions.

But you are using their strategy as your yardstick for evaluating their adherence to the principle. So what, exactly, in their stated ideals requires them to pursue not just a sub-optimal, but a potentially self-destructive strategy?

No. I'm observing their activities and stated beliefs. Not their strategies. Nothing "requires" them to do anything, other than consistency, which in itself is required for their stated motives to be the actual ones their harbor.

Semantics. A strategy is a series of activities designed to achieve a certain goal. But I'll rephrase in order to hopefully move this forward:

What within their stated motives is inconsistent with pursuing activities that work toward potentially achievable goals (like prohibiting same-sex marriage) instead of activities that work toward a goal (like divorce reform) that is both unlikely to achieve a positive outcome, and is much more likely to have truly disasterous outcome (the fracturing of the movement)?

Their stated motive is to "protect marriage." This is false, because there are many things that one would think would "threaten" marriage, which they really don't care about. They simply focus on homosexuality because they don't like homosexuality.

None of this has anything to do with "strategy" or "semantics". A strategy is a means to an end, and I don't recall ever saying anything about the means they employ to that end. I question their stated motives for it.

Maybe I can clear this up (I hope). As I understand Luigi, he isn't saying:

"The anti-gay marriage people have to work against divorce as well, so that their activities (or strategies) will be consistent." (thereby dividing their efforts, as Dustin says)

He's saying:

"The anti-gay marriage people should at least speak out about the issue of divorce so that their beliefs (motives) will be consistent." (thereby gaining credibility on the gay marriage issue)

Bingo. Thank you, Annie Sullivan.

I feel that the problem is that people claim that they aren't "anti-gay marriage" they are just "pro traditional marriage." Problem is that they do nothing to promote traditional marriage or marriage in any form. They only oppose the idea of gay marriage and try to dress it up as something else. It's like when David Duke said "we're not anti-black; we're just pro white."

Exactly. Euphemisms. That's all it is. "We want to protect marriage" is just the current line/slogan/mantra, like "Compassionate Conservatism", "Extreme Rendition", etc.

Isn't that like stopping to paint a wall while invaders are trying to scale it? The reason that supporters of traditional marriage- not a euphamism- are focusing so much on gay marriage is that there are SIGNIFICANT ONGOING EFFORTS to change laws and legislate gay marriage currently happening. Those require immediate response; it is a reaction. Does that mean that there is no need to strengthen current marriage and oppose the ongoing divorce trend? No! But you're not going to see the same public reaction because there is not an ongoing public effort to legislate easier divorce laws.

Likewise, divorce is an individual choice of people already married, not a legal issue; gay marriage is an attempt to alter national laws. You are going to see a more focused, public effort in that area because it is a response to a more global, public issue. As you've rightly pointed out, Luigi, you can't just pass an 'anti-divorce' legislation; divorce and weak marriages must be dealt with in different ways than a legal battle, which is what gay marriage can become. So of course you are not going to see the same kind of efforts- that does not mean there aren't significant efforts out there from supporters of traditional marriage to reach married couples and urge them to strengthen their marriages- outreach groups are numerous. But the public decrying is largely focused- as a reaction necessity- on the public issue taking place in the public forums.

That's my thought, anyhow. As for me, I'll speak out equally about both to anyone that'll listen. ;-)

In addition to what Andrew said, even speaking out publically against divorce is almost all negative with little to no positive. Every moment they are speaking against divorce is a moment that they aren't speaking against same-sex marriage. It isn't likely that a few words will actually change anyone's mind on divorce. There is a risk that many will be less likely to hear them out on same-sex marriage if they are offended when the group mentions divorce as a negative.

In politics and social movements, you have to focus your message. The more extraneous elements must be trimmed in order to address the broadest audience possible. In a culture that leaps to conclusions and takes offense before the proverbial dropped hat has even hit the floor, failure to focus your message properly, in order to avoid as many potentially offensive elements as possible, is the equivalent of planning to fail.

Add to that, as I said earlier, there is likely no internal consensus on what to do about divorce. If someone says something that elements of the coalition disagree with, it causes internal strife within the movement, which only further distracts the movement from their immediate issue, which is same-sex marriage.

That said, I can relate a quick story of a woman at my church. She was called in as a realtor to sell a home. When she got there, she found out that the couple that lived there was getting a divorce. Instead of finding a buyer, processing the sale and getting paid, she instead got to know them, witnessed to them, mentored them and helped them seek help in order to restore their marriage. Does that sound like someone who treats "We want to protect marriage" as just a slogan?

Andrew: The reason that supporters of traditional marriage- not a euphamism- are focusing so much on gay marriage is that there are SIGNIFICANT ONGOING EFFORTS to change laws and legislate gay marriage currently happening.
Luigi Novi: Here we go again. You make some poorly-constructed argument, I refute it, so you retreat from posting for a time, and then pop up later, at which you point you pretend you didn’t read the refutation, and repeat the same fallacy all over again, hoping that no one has noticed. When are you going to accept that this tactic doesn’t work with me, Andrew? You already tried making this unsupported “gays wanna change the laws” claim in your December 4, 12:37pm post above, and I responded in my December 4, 9:46pm post thus:

Andrew: Only gay marriage ADVOCATES supported a bill to change the laws.
Luigi Novi: Really? Which law was this? As I understand it, the law never specified gender in regards to marriage in the first place, which is why opponents of gay marriage seek to pass bills defining it as strictly heterosexual. Besides, didn’t you say that there were no concept of gay marriage to begin with? If there was no concept of it, how could the laws you mention have outlawed it?

“Aw right, listen up! We gotta get together and ban……..you know…….that thing.” “What thing?”
“You know, that thing that we don’t like, but which I can’t quite articulate…”
“Well, then, how do you know we don’t like it or gotta outlaw it?”
“Um……….I’ll get back to you on that.”

So why are you now repeating this, without addressing the response I already gave to it? If my counter-reasoning wasn’t sound, then why didn’t you respond in order to explain why?

We know it wasn’t because you didn’t have time to do so, because you continued to post on the Star Trek boards, and here you are now, just ten days later. Indeed, after the drubbing Brian and I gave you on so many of the statements you made in your last post a week and a half ago, I wondered if you would fall back on your retreat—then—reappear—later—without—answering—and—hope nobody—notices—tactic, and sure enough, you did. So what about all the other points of yours that I and Brian Fitzgerald refuted? Why didn’t you respond to any of those? Some examples:

1. You claimed, for example, that you were “pretty detailed in spelling out your dictionary research” for the claim that the word “ban” refers to things not in existence. I responded by pointing out that you were not “pretty detailed” in this, as you never cited a single dictionary or other reference source to indicated that word “ban” required this, whereas I cited three different ones that made no indication of it. (You cited the word “prevent”, but aside from the fact that not all reference sources employ that synonym in the definition, the word “prevent” refers to the act itself that is illegal, and not the creation of a law allowing it.) So why did you not answer this point? Can you do so now?

2. You asserted that marriage was “designed” as a heterosexual union between one man and one woman. Brian and I pointed out to you that this is flat-out false, as marriage was historically a business transaction pertaining to acquiring wealth and power, sealing treaties and other relationships, etc., often involved (and in some areas continues to involve) one man and many women, and in general, has existed in many forms throughout history. Why did you not respond to this?

3. You asserted that “intruding onto one’s freedom” only refers to when the law takes something away from someone that they already had. I responded that this requirement was a complete fabrication on your part (much like “ban” referring to things not in existence), and that if true, this would mean that slaves in the U.S. did not have their freedom intruded upon because they never had freedom prior to 1863. Can you explain where you got the idea that the phrase requires a pre-held right? Can you explain why you did not respond to this?

I’ve called you out every time you’ve attempted this chicken-out-and-return tactic; When are you going to stop using it? Is it not getting through to you that I’m not fooled by it? Or your attempts to misdirect attention from this practice, like your blatant attempt this past April to change the subject and claim that I had never pointed out this behavior of yours, even though I most certainly had on a number of occasions, and even cited examples in the post of mine that immediately preceded the one in which you made that assertion?

If you are intellectually honest, and sincerely believe in the rightness of your position, you can’t exhibit dishonest conduct when discussing and defending it. Adhere to an intellectually honest methodology by which matters of fact and reason are properly explored, including responding directly and honestly when others refute your statements. Continue to stonewall and then bring up the same fallacy later, and I’ll call you on it, just as I’ve always done.

Andrew: Those require immediate response; it is a reaction.
Luigi Novi: And as I’ve pointed out to you and Dustin, this is irrelevant, since statements of belief and principle are not bound by issues of pragmatism. The so-called protectors of marriage can still voice concerns over other things that may threaten marriage as a matter of principle.. Either gay marriage opponents are being honest when they say they want to “protect the definition of marriage” or “protect the sanctity of marriage” or “prevent damage to heterosexual marriages” or “marriage as an institution,” or they don’t.

Clearly they don’t.

If they did, then they would at least make their feelings known about things that really do threaten the institution of marriage. Indeed, Republicans have no problem “changing laws” when it comes to things that affect them, as with this MSNBC story about efforts to decriminalize divorce in New Hampshire. The move is supported by a Democrat and Republican representative. Big surprise, since no one wants the government intruding into their private lives, even if it means “altering laws”, as Andrew puts it. And I’m willing to be that most or all Republicans would agree with this. But ask the same Republicans if they’re willing to give the same equal consideration to gays, and you get a different answer. So why are they trying to enact a “previously-nonexistent institution” in New Hampshire (legal divorce) if laws against it are already “entrenched”, and if they are really are for protecting marriage?

Because they’re not for protecting marriage.

And it has nothing to do with what’s “entrenched” or a “previously-nonexistent institution” or any of the other silly euphemisms you can throw at this debate.

The truth is that they’re just for protecting their own rights to do as they please in their private lives, but don't adhere to the same principle when it comes to those who make them feel “icky”.

And all the smoke and mirrors in the world about “strategies” and “reactions” and fake definitions of words doesn’t change this one bit.

Andrew: Does that mean that there is no need to strengthen current marriage and oppose the ongoing divorce trend? No! But you're not going to see the same public reaction because there is not an ongoing public effort to legislate easier divorce laws.
Luigi Novi: There is no ongoing public effort to legislate easier divorce laws because divorce is already easy.

Andrew: Likewise, divorce is an individual choice of people already married…
Luigi Novi: Just as marriage is an individual choice of people not already married. Why should the right of individual choice only be legally recognized for married couples, and not for single persons who wish to marry? Married people should have more rights than singles?

Andrew: …not a legal issue.
Luigi Novi: Divorce is indeed a legal issue. Where you get the idea that it isn’t, I have no idea.

Andrew: gay marriage is an attempt to alter national laws.
Luigi Novi: And I will ask you one more time: What national law prohibits gay marriage? Can you name this law? If there is already a national law prohibiting gay marriage, then why was it necessary to enact Proposition 8? Or the recent law enacted in New York? You don't have to create new state laws for things that the national law already says are illegal, right? For that matter, why have g.m. opponents attempted to enact Constitutional amendments to prohibit it? Remember, to amend something means to change it. This isn't your opinion vs. mine. It's a question of fact. Gay marriage opponents are the ones trying to AMEND--that is, CHANGE the law. They are the ones trying to bring about a change to law because the law does not say anything about gays not being able to marry. Why would they try to bring about a Constitutional amendment to something already unlawful? Can you explain this?

Andrew: That does not mean there aren't significant efforts out there from supporters of traditional marriage to reach married couples and urge them to strengthen their marriages- outreach groups are numerous.
Luigi Novi: But in the public arena, gay marriage opponents are completely silent on things that really do trivialize marriage, even as a question of principle.

And some are not silent, but contradictory, like Doug Manchester, who donated $125,000 to get Prop 8 passed, because, according to him, “my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church.” Well, guess what? Good ol' Doug left his wife of 43 years, engaged in a game of financial hardball with her that drained their bank accounts, and even allegedly stole her mail. If he were motivated by "principle", he might've valued the sanctity of their marriage more, would've exhibited generosity in dividing their property, and wouldn't have stolen anything. Funny how "principle" pops up for gay marriage, but not when it comes to behavior that actually trivializes a straight marriage.

But I'm sure that he's the exception, right? It's not like other gay marriage opponents would exhibit such hypocrisy, right? Oh, no.

Dustin: Does that sound like someone who treats "We want to protect marriage" as just a slogan?
Luigi Novi: The fact that she helped a couple in need was quite wonderful of her, but it no way means that she is against divorce. Marriage counselors do what she did all the time. But they do it because they want to help people, and there’s a market for it that allows them to do it for a living. They don’t do it because they’re categorically, absolutely against divorce. If that woman learned that the man was beating his wife and refused to get help, would she have insisted that the wife stay with him?

"Here we go again. You make some poorly-constructed argument, I refute it, so you retreat from posting for a time, and then pop up later, at which you point you pretend you didn’t read the refutation, and repeat the same fallacy all over again, hoping that no one has noticed." - Luigi

Ummm... actually, no. I wasn't reading the thread. I just jumped in again when I notice a new comment on the Last Day post and answered it, because it looked to me like it was on another subject; I felt I'd already said all I had to say in the previous round and wasn't interested in a debate- just saying what I had to say, take it or leave it. If you feel this issue was already addressed by an earlier response, I'll go check it out; but I'm not pretending or avoiding anything.

In the interest of 'not leaving you hanging'- all right, fine. I will admit you are correct on one picayune, tiny bit of phrasing. There is not an effort to change the laws per se, more of an effort to create laws to retroactively alter the traditional- but not legally defined- understanding of marriage. This does not in any way, shape, or form alter the points made about why this draws an active counter-movement because it is a current and public issue, however, if it makes you feel better to refer to it as 'creating' instead of 'changing,' I will admit the nuance.

As for my drubbing, again, sorry, I didn't see any of those. I wasn't avoiding them. Sometimes I'm in for a good debate- sometimes I consider the discussion a group forum where I was just throwing in my own two cents, no follow-up needed. This was one of those times. Sorry if it offended you. Now please stop accusing me of cowardly tactics- it offends me.

To your numbers:
1. Fair enough. I phrased that poorly. I was just being snarky after already conceding the point anyway; regardless I listed the definitions as- I believe it was Dictionary.com, but I'd have to check- defined the words in my original post, so I was poking fun at your statement that you 'had no idea where I got that.' Regardless, I already had, and have, conceded the point.

2. I didn't respond to it because I didn't see it, pal. In any event, your assertion is the one that's flat-out false by reason of your incorrect assumption: that how marriage has been used or abused in the past is indicative of how it was DESIGNED. Marriage was designed as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman of mutual love and respect; it was designed so by God. I don't ask you to believe that, but nonetheless, if it has been taken and misused as a contract, a land-grabber, a method of oppressing women, or one of any number of abuses throughout history- and yes, that includes many in the Bible, I.e. Jacob, etc., before someone brings that up- that does not reflect one iota on how it was designed (regardless of whom designed it, consequently).

3. Perhaps a clarification; I was referring to... hmmm... don't even know how to put that... conceptual inventions. Rights that exist. Freedom is a right; it already exists, and slavery is taking away that right (even if the slave was never accorded it in the first place) because it is a fundamental right belonging to human being. The law does not create rights; it only recognizes them or restricts them. A 'right' to gay marriage is not, however, a right because... well, see the whole circular argument, definition of marriage, blah, blah, blah. Suffice to say, 'gay marriage' is an invention, a privilege some desire to create; there is no right being denied and thus no freedom being denied except in the general sense of 'doing whatever I want to do.' That 'right' is impinged upon by many laws. :-) I don't know, I may be simply poorly articulating the concept. It really all comes down to the whole 'what is the right to marriage- the right to marry whomever you love, or the right to marry whichever person of the opposite gender you love (that isn't already married or related to you).' However, based on my position that it is the latter- which, again, is the whole crux of the argument- then there is no 'right' being denied here, but instead a fabrication that some want to turn into a 'legal right'- which denying is not an impingement upon.

I'm not sure I'm making any sense here, though, so it's probably better to just ignore it 'till I can't find a way to articulate it in a way that makes sense at least to me... ;-)


"And as I’ve pointed out to you and Dustin, this is irrelevant, since statements of belief and principle are not bound by issues of pragmatism. The so-called protectors of marriage can still voice concerns over other things that may threaten marriage as a matter of principle.." - Luigi

And they DO, despite your attempts to turn a blind eye to it. But when one is a RESPONSE, there are going to be people publicly talking about it EVERY TIME IT'S BROUGHT UP BY EITHER SIDE. By it's nature, you're going to hear more of it in the public forums and it is going to draw more effort in it's opposition away from other issues BECAUSE it is a direct opposition. It's not hypocrisy or lack of care about the other issues that causes it. It's the nature of a direct, ongoing dialogue about a current, ongoing legal battle.

To use another one of my crummy metaphors, if I was taking a neighbor to court over stealing my lawn ornaments, would you expect me to spend equal time talking about my other neighbor who's stealing my mail to the judge during the case? No, because my time is going to be taken up dealing directly with the matter at hand. Does that mean I consider one theft worse than the other? No. Does that mean I don't care about the mail theft or are not trying to deal with it? No. But in that public forum, which is focused on that particular issue, I'm going to be talking more about that issue, because it's of immediate, relevant bearing on the current proceedings. It has nothing to do with my priorities, beliefs, or principles- and I may be launching equally strenuous efforts of another nature, not in the public forum of that courthouse, to deal with the mail theft, which you'd find if you looked for them. But if you're only looking at that one public forum, you're only going to hear me talking about one neighbor- and you shouldn't infer anything from that, because the forum is DIRECTED towards that discussion in the first place.


"Indeed, Republicans have no problem “changing laws” when it comes to things that affect them, as with this MSNBC story about efforts to decriminalize divorce in New Hampshire. The move is supported by a Democrat and Republican representative." - Luigi

I'm sorry, what? What does this have to do with anything???? So a politician makes a move designed to gather popularity with his constituents... what does that have to do with the beliefs of marriage supporters?

"So why are they trying to enact a “previously-nonexistent institution” in New Hampshire (legal divorce) if laws against it are already “entrenched”, and if they are really are for protecting marriage?" - Luigi

That's an absurd straw man based on your conjecture that one one Repbulican representative is indicative of the mindset of an entire group of marraige supporters which you have provided no indication that he was even affiliated with!

Does this mean that because Bill Clinton was a Democrat, all Gay Marriage proponents support cheating on their wives with interns? I think not. :-)

"The truth is that they’re just for protecting their own rights to do as they please in their private lives, but don't adhere to the same principle when it comes to those who make them feel “icky”." - Luigi

Luigi, you've proven time and again that the thought of gay people being associated with 'icky' is at the forefront of YOUR mind... but unless you have some evidence of your assertion that this is the reasoning behind your intellectual opponents' actions, I'd thanking you to stop throwing such insulting and degrading slurs about. Not to mention that this assertion is still based on some straw man republican representative that has nothing to do with traditional marriage supporters whatsoever.


"And all the smoke and mirrors in the world about “strategies” and “reactions” and fake definitions of words doesn’t change this one bit." - Luigi
It's not a 'smokescreen' any more than your original unproven assertion that the level of discussion to which they refer in the first place has ANYTHING to do with the debate about gay marriage. As near as I can tell, you're still only making an ad hominem attack against supporters of marriage, claiming that their viewpoint is invalid because they do not discus all threats to marriage in a manner you find consistent (Despite mine and Dustin's attempts to explain why you perceive an apparent 'dichotomy' in the first place.) This would seem to match the Ask.com dictionary's definition of "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason", and definitely applies to, as Wikipedia quotes from the same source, "an argument which links the validity of a premise (opposition to gay marriage) to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise (They don't talk about this other thing as much!)"

"There is no ongoing public effort to legislate easier divorce laws because divorce is already easy." - Luigi
I agree. And that's NOT a good thing, IMHO. However, that doesn't refute the point that you were responding to- it IS easy, unfortunately, so there is not an ongoing legal battle about it- thus, it is not raised as a topic as often as the issue that IS ongoing right now; not as a matter of priorities, but as a matter of responding to the currently ongoing debate.

"Andrew: Likewise, divorce is an individual choice of people already married…
Luigi Novi: Just as marriage is an individual choice of people not already married. Why should the right of individual choice only be legally recognized for married couples, and not for single persons who wish to marry? Married people should have more rights than singles?
Andrew: …not a legal issue.
Luigi Novi: Divorce is indeed a legal issue. Where you get the idea that it isn’t, I have no idea."
I think you misunderstand. What I was saying is that divorce is a case by case individual choice of individuals already married- it is not so simple to oppose as 'passing an anti-divorce law.' gay marriage is an ongoing attempt to change state or nation legislation; or create it, as the case may be- thus it is a PUBLIC legal issue and debate, and approached to differently. Which is why you hear different kinds of debate and discussion on the two issues, in different forums and at different levels; because they are dealt with in different arenas.

"Andrew: gay marriage is an attempt to alter national laws.
Luigi Novi: And I will ask you one more time: What national law prohibits gay marriage?"
As already conceded, fine- CREATE national laws, not ALTER national laws.

"Gay marriage opponents are the ones trying to AMEND--that is, CHANGE the law. They are the ones trying to bring about a change to law because the law does not say anything about gays not being able to marry. Why would they try to bring about a Constitutional amendment to something already unlawful? Can you explain this?" - Luigi
In response to ongoing attempts by gay marriage advocates to EQUALLY amend the law to make gay marriage a recognized institution. I will admit that, ignoring the traditional understanding of law, from a legal standpoint the law is neutral- gay marriage does not currently exist and trying to change it to say one thing or another is an amendment by either side. But please, don't try and tell me that both sides are not attempting to equally as much. Or is the phrase 'legalizing gay marriage in Massachusets' a misnomer? Seems they wouldn't make such a big deal out of things like that if the law wasn't being amended THERE, either.

"Andrew: That does not mean there aren't significant efforts out there from supporters of traditional marriage to reach married couples and urge them to strengthen their marriages- outreach groups are numerous.
Luigi Novi: But in the public arena, gay marriage opponents are completely silent on things that really do trivialize marriage, even as a question of principle."
That is an unsupported blanket statement and a matter of opinion; maybe you haven't been spending time with the same advocates that I have? Regardless, it's not true. Some, perhaps, in the political arena, not wanting to ruffle feathers. But not the traditional marriage proponents that I work with, speak with, or attend rallies for. Do nearly all have a greater focus on the ISSUE THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDERGOING DEBATE? Yes. Do they ignore issues like divorce- Not by a long shot! It seems you have to pick which proponents are the problem, because you accusations are not universal, nor universally applicable to marriage supporters in general!

"But I'm sure that he's the exception, right? It's not like other gay marriage opponents would exhibit such hypocrisy, right? Oh, no." - Luigi

Oh, is that how we're going to play this? 'X is a slimeball (as Doug is), and he identifies with this cause, thus all people in the cause are hypocrits?' Yeah, that's not ad hominem at all, nor is it an irrelevant conclusion, and it's certainly not descending to common mudslinging. [sarcasm mode/] This one hypocritical individual completely disproves my whole point, and your sarcastic assertion that other individuals are similar means you must be right, completely proving that the other side are all hypocrites. [sarcasm mode/off]

If that's your tactic, sir, then don't lecture me on intellectual honesty.


"Dustin: Does that sound like someone who treats "We want to protect marriage" as just a slogan?
Luigi Novi: The fact that she helped a couple in need was quite wonderful of her, but it no way means that she is against divorce. Marriage counselors do what she did all the time. But they do it because they want to help people, and there’s a market for it that allows them to do it for a living. They don’t do it because they’re categorically, absolutely against divorce."
What the flipping heck???? You're given evidence of someone doing exactly what you demanded*- opposing divorce and putting 'money where mouth is' in terms of beliefs- and you're dismissing it as irrelevant? And what, precisely, do traditional marriage supporters have to DO to equally be opposing divorce and being 'morally consistent' in their principles? It seems to me like you're looking for an unmeetable standard! How about some definition there?


*And no, I am not citing that as 'evidence' of marriage supporters actions, because use of one anecdotal evidence for that would be just as fallacious as your Doug example above. I'm just objecting to your claiming that this act of supporting marriage by opposing divorce ISN'T EVEN OPPOSING DIVORCE.


"I’ve called you out every time you’ve attempted this chicken-out-and-return tactic; When are you going to stop using it? Is it not getting through to you that I’m not fooled by it? Etc." - Luigi

Luigi, I'm not trying to fool you. In fact, the primary reason that I leave our little discussions is that both my wife and I are so sick or your personal attacks on me that she's extracted my promise that I'll stay out of Nitcentral political/religious debates. :-) And based on that promise, I will bow out, and stay out, because this has definitely become a debate. :-) I'm sorry if that seems cowardly to you; I'm not trying to run- I've made my points, and I will view your counter-points, so that you know in advance that I'm won't be ignoring you.


I am not trying to fool you. I am not trying to hit and run. I'm trying to engage in debate WHEN I HAVE THE TIME, and I'm trying to avoid getting embroiled in flame-esque wars like these when I don't feel that revisiting the thread will do any good. If that leaves you hanging and gives the impression of my running away sometimes, I apologize. I'm not trying to do that. Please let it go- this is the second time you've posted a diatribe about me with indexed-by-date hyperlinks... while I'm flattered to be an object of obsession, I really don't enjoy it. Half the time it feels like you're going to google me (now that we're in the same state) and show up at my house with a pair of boxing gloves. :-) I'm sorry I irritate you so; it's not my intention. And I'm sorry if my 'tactics' - which are not intentional, just byproducts of a busy schedule, and, I suppose, a careless attitude towards some of these discussions, which I apologize for - distress you.

Now please, let it go.

Marriage was designed as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman of mutual love and respect; it was designed so by God. - Andrew

If marriage was, as so many Christians love to claim, "designed by...God", then how is it that so many "heathen" cultures came up with the concept? They weren't exposed to your version of the god concept. Yet they independently developed the marriage concept. (Which goes a long way to indicating that marriage is not a divine construct, but a man-made one often surrounded by religious rituals.)

Come to think of it, do Christians actually follow the rituals established by god? Or did they make it up as they went along? If the latter, then doesn't kinda belie the "divine nature" of marriage?

"If marriage was, as so many Christians love to claim, "designed by...God", then how is it that so many "heathen" cultures came up with the concept? They weren't exposed to your version of the god concept. Yet they independently developed the marriage concept. (Which goes a long way to indicating that marriage is not a divine construct, but a man-made one often surrounded by religious rituals.)" - Benn
Biblically, it was introduced to Adam, and to Noah- not a pagan culture exists that didn't go through them first.

"Come to think of it, do Christians actually follow the rituals established by god? Or did they make it up as they went along? If the latter, then doesn't kinda belie the "divine nature" of marriage?" - Benn

I don't believe that God especially established 'rituals' so much as He did the institution itself. And yes, Christians model both vows and the template for marriage out of scriptural reference.


Popped back in for a quick addendum to Luigi- you have my e-mail address if you want to discus anything further. Again, I'm not trying to evade anything. Have a good week, all... I'm out! :-)

And yes, Christians model both vows and the template for marriage out of scriptural reference. - Andrew

And said vows have been modified over the years. Notably the "honor and obey" clause. Again, god clearly did not actually establish marriage as many cultures and races developed the concept independently of Christian-Judeo influence. Marriage in and of itself is not "divine". It is man-made.

Moreover, I'm willing to bet the concept of marriage actually predates Judaic tradition.

Andrew: Ummm... actually, no. I wasn't reading the thread. I just jumped in again when I notice a new comment on the Last Day post and answered it, because it looked to me like it was on another subject; I felt I'd already said all I had to say in the previous round and wasn't interested in a debate…
Luigi Nov: Nice try. But here’s how we know that this is just more of your dissembling:

First of all, you did not “jump in when you noticed a new comment on Last Day”, because the thread had been continuing uninterrupted after your last post a week and a half ago, meaning that the Last Day page had been showing new posts between then and now. So if you were monitoring the Last Day page to see if anyone was continuing to post (much as I do), then you saw all those posts.

Second, regardless of your alleged belief that it was a new subject (what other subject could it be, given that this board is designated for a pretty narrowly-defined topic?), nothing precluded you from reading the posts that had been made after your last one a week and a half ago, especially since they included ones by me directed to you in response to your last post back then. If the thread was now a new subject, didn’t reading the posts show otherwise? Didn’t you notice that it was a continuation of the same thread?

Third, if you were under the impression that this was a “new subject”, why did you repeat the exact same comments, including the falsehood about which side is trying to “change” the laws, if that was part of “all you had to say” previously? So it was a new subject, and you said all you had to say previously, but you repeated the same exact arguments? How is this?

Simple.

You did not think it was a “new subject”.

You saw what was being said, and when you did, you saw that it was a continuation of the same thread. You saw that your prior statements were refuted, and couldn’t concede this, so you thought you’d just repeat the same canards all over again, just as you’re still continuing to deceptive reasons for your behavior in order to cover this up, just as you’ve done for years.

Andrew: …and wasn't interested in a debate…
Luigi Novi: Again, nice try. But that schtick didn’t work when Rona Feinberg tried it, and it still doesn’t work. You posted over and over a week and a half ago, and are doing so again now, just as I and everyone else does in a thread. That is participating in a debate.

Andrew: I will admit you are correct on one picayune, tiny bit of phrasing. There is not an effort to change the laws per se, more of an effort to create laws to retroactively alter the traditional- but not legally defined- understanding of marriage. This does not in any way, shape, or form alter the points made about why this draws an active counter-movement because it is a current and public issue, however, if it makes you feel better to refer to it as 'creating' instead of 'changing,' I will admit the nuance.
Luigi Novi: It is not a picayune tiny bit of phrasing, it is a fundamental component of your position, and those of gay marriage advocates, because the existence or absence of pre-existing national laws against it, and the Constitutionality of such laws, lies at the heart of the conflict. If it weren’t, you wouldn’t have utilized that line of argument, much less repeated it over and over after it had already been refuted, a point that lies at the core of why your arguments are poorly thought-out, and your intellectually dishonest behavior, and has no bearing on what “makes me feel better.”

As for why it draws a counter-movement, I really don’t care, since that’s irrelevant to what I’ve expressed on gay marriage opponents’ hypocrisy, as I’ve pointed out numerous times.

Andrew: Sorry if it offended you. Now please stop accusing me of cowardly tactics- it offends me.
Luigi Novi: The fact that you exhibit this behavior goes to the consciousness on your part that you’re wrong, and the poor character you display. It does not have anything to do with whether it “offends” me, as this is just another attempt by you to shift the focus to me, when your behavior doesn’t reflect upon me. It only reflects upon you. If you’re “offended” by someone pointing out your behavior, and employing cogent reasoning or evidence to draw conclusions about it, then the solution is quite simple:

Either refute that reasoning or evidence (such as the three ways we know your excuse above was a lie).

Or stop exhibiting that behavior.

Stop dodging refutations of your statements. Stop acting like reading posts made during an interruption in your presence here is a chore. Stop attempting to misdirect attention by claiming that pointing this out reflects that I am “irritated”, “distressed”, or “offended”, as it does no such thing. Stop giving false reasons for your behavior, because as I pointed out at the top of this post, those reasons don’t jibe with the evidence of your behavior. And stop pretending that pointing when someone points out bad behavior on you part, that it is somehow bad behavior itself, as you when you accuse me of “personal attacks”. It isn’t.

You do this, and I can assure you that I will “let it go.”

But if you continue to reserve for yourself the privilege of acting this way, then I can assure you, I’m going to point it out every time, just as I’ve pointed it out several times before with you (and not “twice”, as you’ve alleged).

Andrew: 2. In any event, your assertion is the one that's flat-out false by reason of your incorrect assumption: that how marriage has been used or abused in the past is indicative of how it was DESIGNED. Marriage was designed as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman of mutual love and respect..
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about how marriage was “used or abused”. The various forms in which marriage has existed that Brian and I pointed out—that is marriage. Not a “use or abuse” of it. That is, those were the legitimate forms in which the institution was practiced in mainstream society, and in the cases of some of them, continues to be to this day. That is not a “use or abuse” of it. This isn’t an “assumption”. It’s a fact.

Andrew: it was designed so by God.
Luigi Novi: The historical evidence says otherwise. The earliest records of marriage pre-date the Bible. One example is the Code of Hammurabi, which predates the Bible by anywhere from 200 to 700 years. For most of European history, arranged marriage was a business agreement between families, in which romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential. And as Benn pointed out, cultures that have not had the Bible have had marriage, in contradiction to your falsehood that “not a pagan culture exists that didn't go through them first.”

In any event, this thread has focused on legalized marriage in the U.S., where laws must have a secular purpose, and cannot be imposed upon people if they are purely religious.

Andrew: Suffice to say, 'gay marriage' is an invention, a privilege some desire to create; there is no right being denied and thus no freedom being denied except in the general sense of 'doing whatever I want to do.' That 'right' is impinged upon by many laws. :-) I don't know, I may be simply poorly articulating the concept. It really all comes down to the whole 'what is the right to marriage- the right to marry whomever you love, or the right to marry whichever person of the opposite gender you love (that isn't already married or related to you).' However, based on my position that it is the latter- which, again, is the whole crux of the argument- then there is no 'right' being denied here, but instead a fabrication that some want to turn into a 'legal right'- which denying is not an impingement upon. I'm not sure I'm making any sense here, though, so it's probably better to just ignore it 'till I can't find a way to articulate it in a way that makes sense at least to me... ;-)
Luigi Novi: Straight marriage is also an “invention”. All cultural institutions, all things created by humans are inventions. And just as straights get married to formally codify the pair bond, so too do gays have the right to do the same. For anyone to infringe on that is immoral and un-American.

As far as freedom being infrigned upon in the general sense of “doing whatever I want to do,” well, yeah, that’s kinda the point, since doing whatever you want to do is a right every American has, gay or straight, as long as they’re not hurting anyone or violating anyone’s rights.

As far as finding a way to articulate your position in a way that makes sense, at least to you, well, good luck with that, but then you could also consider the possibility that your inability to articulate your position may stem from the fact that it has no merit, as demonstrated by the falsehoods, poor bits of reasoning, and fallacies with which it is littered. That you would rather post this rambling bit of incoherent gibberish, as well as that “blah blah blah” passage, as something preferable to simply admitting that you’re wrong, speaks volumes about you and your position.

Andrew: And they DO, despite your attempts to turn a blind eye to it.
Luigi Novi: Sure, Andrew. Despite all the material I read or listen to on the radio, on TV, in books, newspapers, magazines, on the Internet, etc., and how I cite that information whenever I can, I’m turning a blind eye. Hell, I have to point out your repeated evasions of refutations of your statements, and all you can do is come up with excuses for this, such as “I didn’t see all those posts on the Last Day page” (even though they were there), I posted links to news stories, link to previous discussions to remind you of things you’d like to forget, etc., but I’m the one turning a blind eye. Surrrrrrre.

Andrew: But when one is a RESPONSE, there are going to be people publicly talking about it EVERY TIME IT'S BROUGHT UP BY EITHER SIDE.
Luigi Novi: And they can “respond” to those other things too.

But they don’t.

And your insistence on this false requirement continues to be a split hair used to cover up selective adherence to a stated principle.

Andrew: To use another one of my crummy metaphors, if I was taking a neighbor to court over stealing my lawn ornaments, would you expect me to spend equal time talking about my other neighbor who's stealing my mail to the judge during the case?
Luigi Novi: Again, you might want to reconsider the wisdom of a position that requires you to use “crummy metaphors” to illustrate it. If you admit you have to use poor reasoning to illustrate a position, then you should be able to concede that that position has no merit.

Those two matters would not be brought into the same case for a number of reasons, such as the fact that they’re two separate acts by two different people, the fact that one is a tort, or civil wrong, whereas the other is a federal crime, etc. The requirement that they be adjudicated in separate proceedings is determined by the law and its operational procedures, which has nothing to do with someone choosing to selectively cite a principle only when it intrudes upon the rights of another person or group, and not when it would intrude upon his own.

Andrew: No, because my time is going to be taken up dealing directly with the matter at hand.
Luigi Novi: Nope. Sorry. Wrong answer.

Your time is going to be taken up dealing with both matters, as they are both “at hand,” even if they must be dealt with separately for the reasons I mentioned above. If you doubt this, try reporting the federal crime, and then, after you’re called to testify in federal court, tell your contacts that you’re not going to go because that matter is “not at hand”, and see how the feds react.

Andrew: I'm sorry, what? What does this have to do with anything???? So a politician makes a move designed to gather popularity with his constituents... what does that have to do with the beliefs of marriage supporters?…That's an absurd straw man based on your conjecture that one one Repbulican representative is indicative of the mindset of an entire group of marraige supporters which you have provided no indication that he was even affiliated with!
Luigi Novi: The fact that politicians have no problem “changing laws” to make divorce legal, but have a problem with gay marriage advocates supposedly “changing laws” to make gay marriage legal illustrates their hypocrisy. I believe I was rather clear in this.

Andrew: Does this mean that because Bill Clinton was a Democrat, all Gay Marriage proponents support cheating on their wives with interns?
Luigi Novi: 1. Infidelity and advocating gay marriage are not contradictory. 2. Bill Clinton does not support gay marriage. He signed the Defense of Marriage Act, in case you didn’t know.

Andrew: Luigi, you've proven time and again that the thought of gay people being associated with 'icky' is at the forefront of YOUR mind... but unless you have some evidence of your assertion that this is the reasoning behind your intellectual opponents' actions, I'd thanking you to stop throwing such insulting and degrading slurs about.
Luigi Novi: I already have, here and elsewhere. When a person or group employs logically incoherent arguments or falsehoods to illustrate their position, and exhibits inconsistency in their adherence to the principle they claim to harbor, that is evidence that their motives are not those they claim. Your reaction is to simply ignore this, utilize (by your admission) poorly-made arguments, metaphors and analogies in response to it, and exhibit deceptive behavior to cover up or misdirect attention from this fact.

Andrew: Not to mention that this assertion is still based on some straw man republican representative that has nothing to do with traditional marriage supporters whatsoever.
Luigi Novi: Nope. I’ve observed this and pointed it out for some time, on Nitcentral and elsewhere, long before I read that MSNBC story.

Andrew: As near as I can tell, you're still only making an ad hominem attack against supporters of marriage, claiming that their viewpoint is invalid because they do not discus all threats to marriage in a manner you find consistent (Despite mine and Dustin's attempts to explain why you perceive an apparent 'dichotomy' in the first place.)

………

Oh, is that how we're going to play this? 'X is a slimeball (as Doug is), and he identifies with this cause, thus all people in the cause are hypocrits?' Yeah, that's not ad hominem at all
Luigi Novi: I already responded to Dustin’s statements with an explanation of how my statements were not made ad hominem. Neither is my pointing out the hypocrisy of people like Doug Manchester, and you haven’t even bothered trying to explain how it is.

Andrew: What the flipping heck???? You're given evidence of someone doing exactly what you demanded*- opposing divorce and putting 'money where mouth is' in terms of beliefs
Luigi Novi: Dustin did not indicate that that woman was against divorce. All he indicated was that she counseled one couple in need.

I’ll ask again: Is this woman absolutely against all divorce, in all circumstances? Would she “counsel” them if she learned that husband was beating the wife, and put her in a hospital, and refused to stop or get help?

But hey, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Dustin was attempting to indicate this, and it just wasn’t clear to me.

If so, then I disagree with her.

But she does not typify most Americans, including gay marriage opponents, who probably want the ability to divorce when they want to, without government intrusion.

Biblically, it was introduced to Adam, and to Noah- not a pagan culture exists that didn't go through them first.

So your argument for denying gay people a right that they want is to claim that the sum total of academic knowledge about Archeology, History, Paleontology, Geology & Astronomy is wrong and the Biblical story of Genesis is the one true literally factual historical record?

Luigi Novi: And as I’ve pointed out to you and Dustin, this is irrelevant, since statements of belief and principle are not bound by issues of pragmatism. The so-called protectors of marriage can still voice concerns over other things that may threaten marriage as a matter of principle.. Either gay marriage opponents are being honest when they say they want to “protect the definition of marriage” or “protect the sanctity of marriage” or “prevent damage to heterosexual marriages” or “marriage as an institution,” or they don’t.

Clearly they don’t.

"Statements of belief and principle are not bound by issues of pragmatism" is fine in the abstract, but unless one of your beliefs or priciples is self-destruction and irrelevance, pragmatism must rule how and when you present those statements.

If their goal is to protect marriage (in whatever form you phrase it), then they should pursue the strategy/engage in the activities/voice their concerns/etc. in a way that provides for the most beneficial outcome, based on their chances of success. To do otherwise would only cause unnecessary damage and, in fact, be inconsistent with their beliefs and principles, not the other way around as you suggest.

If they did, then they would at least make their feelings known about things that really do threaten the institution of marriage. Indeed, Republicans have no problem “changing laws” when it comes to things that affect them, as with this MSNBC story about efforts to decriminalize divorce in New Hampshire. The move is supported by a Democrat and Republican representative. Big surprise, since no one wants the government intruding into their private lives, even if it means “altering laws”, as Andrew puts it. And I’m willing to be that most or all Republicans would agree with this. But ask the same Republicans if they’re willing to give the same equal consideration to gays, and you get a different answer.

A couple of points here to address:

1. If you read the article, the bill under consideration is decriminalizing adultery, not divorce.
2. As noted about 1/3 of the way through the article, the law is rarely used and the legality and enforcability of the law is questionable, which makes it's repeal largely symbolic, and not overly related to actually defending marriage.
3. As noted about 3/4 of the way through the article, conservative groups have fought this repeal effort before, and continue to oppose it.
4. The second link actually refers to 7 Republicans voting for the final bill, while the first only refers to 1 Republican as a sponsor. Since the bills are in two totally different stages of the legislative process, they really can't be compared properly, but even if we did, there seems to be alot more Republican support for legalizing same-sex marriage than there is for decriminalizing adultery.
5. Not all Republicans are against same-sex marriage, and not all Democrats are for same-sex marriage. Bringing in a different categorization only confuses the issue.

But in the public arena, gay marriage opponents are completely silent on things that really do trivialize marriage, even as a question of principle.

And some are not silent, but contradictory, like Doug Manchester, who donated $125,000 to get Prop 8 passed, because, according to him, “my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church.” Well, guess what? Good ol' Doug left his wife of 43 years, engaged in a game of financial hardball with her that drained their bank accounts, and even allegedly stole her mail. If he were motivated by "principle", he might've valued the sanctity of their marriage more, would've exhibited generosity in dividing their property, and wouldn't have stolen anything. Funny how "principle" pops up for gay marriage, but not when it comes to behavior that actually trivializes a straight marriage.

But I'm sure that he's the exception, right? It's not like other gay marriage opponents would exhibit such hypocrisy, right? Oh, no.

Of course there are hypocrites in the movement, just as there are in pretty much every movement in every place in the world. You get more than a few people together, and someone will be there with the wrong or some ulterior motives. Add money and politics to the equation, and you can guarantee the rats will crawl out of the woodwork.

But to suggest that one, or a few, high-profile hypocrites means the majority or even all of the supporters of the movement are hypocrites is absurd. It's guilt by association. If you want to pull up statistical surveys or studies done regarding those who oppose same-sex marriage, you might be able to make a valid point, but otherwise we can trade anecdotes of marriages that succeeded and marriages that failed until the cows come home, and have not even approached a reasonable argument.

The fact that she helped a couple in need was quite wonderful of her, but it no way means that she is against divorce. Marriage counselors do what she did all the time. But they do it because they want to help people, and there’s a market for it that allows them to do it for a living. They don’t do it because they’re categorically, absolutely against divorce. If that woman learned that the man was beating his wife and refused to get help, would she have insisted that the wife stay with him?

What? Are you suggesting that to be consistent with the stated motive of "protecting marriage", one must be "categorically, absolutely against divorce"? If so, I must vehemently disagree. Requiring abuse victims to remain with unrepentant abusers, or victims of adultery with the unrepentant adulterer(ess) does nothing to protect the sanctity of marriage, and very few would suggest that is anywhere close to what should be done.

The only groups I can think of that would hold to such a position are lunatic fringe groups that would say women must be in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Groups like Focus on the Family, hardly a militant feminist organization, take a negative stance on divorce in general, but go nowhere close to being against divorce in every circumstance. (You can read some of their thoughts on these and related issues here.)

Dustin did not indicate that that woman was against divorce. All he indicated was that she counseled one couple in need.

I’ll ask again: Is this woman absolutely against all divorce, in all circumstances? Would she “counsel” them if she learned that husband was beating the wife, and put her in a hospital, and refused to stop or get help?

But hey, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Dustin was attempting to indicate this, and it just wasn’t clear to me.

If so, then I disagree with her.

But she does not typify most Americans, including gay marriage opponents, who probably want the ability to divorce when they want to, without government intrusion.

Let me clarify for you: I was in no way shape or form attempting to suggest that she was against all divorces. Nor would I expect her to counsel an abuse victim to return to an unrepentant abuser, especially given the work she has done at our local battered women's shelter.

What I was attempting to demonstrate was that, in contrast to your suggestion that same-sex marriage opponents don't care about things like quickie divorces, there are indeed people who oppose same-sex marriage who also work in other ways to address other threats to marriage. Rather than taking her commission for selling the house and avoiding the uncomfortable situation, she instead decided to forgo her own financial interest, befriend two near-strangers and spend a significant amount of her own time and energy to help this couple's marriage. If she didn't actually care about marriage, and only opposed same-sex marriage because it is icky, why would she do this?

Regarding your focus on how and when one presents statements of belief, I refer you to my previous posts.

Thanks for the correction about the adultery/divorce point. Thank you also for pointing out that my bifurcation of Dems/Repubs was a inaccurate, a point I should've remembered (especially given the point I made about Clinton). I should not have included that point at all, as the passage would've worked without it.

I do not dispute that there are people like the woman you described, Dustin. But I don't believe she typifies those against gay marriage, and yes, I do believe that as a whole, certain people (bigots, censors, etc.) tend to be hypocrites. Principles are easy to cite when they apparently dovetail with a prejudice one harbors toward another person or group. It's harder to be consistent with them when you get caught under the same umbrella. I wouldn't think this about most gay marriage opponents if not for the fact that all the arguments they employ to defend their position are filled with either falsehoods or specious reasoning.

Regarding your focus on how and when one presents statements of belief, I refer you to my previous posts.

Can you point to one that has some evidence or reasoning presented? Because, at least on this topic, all I see are declarative sentences without any support.

I do not dispute that there are people like the woman you described, Dustin. But I don't believe she typifies those against gay marriage, and yes, I do believe that as a whole, certain people (bigots, censors, etc.) tend to be hypocrites. Principles are easy to cite when they apparently dovetail with a prejudice one harbors toward another person or group. It's harder to be consistent with them when you get caught under the same umbrella. I wouldn't think this about most gay marriage opponents if not for the fact that all the arguments they employ to defend their position are filled with either falsehoods or specious reasoning.

So now they are hypocrites not because they don't speak out against divorce and quickie marriages, as you originally suggested back in your Dec 03, 2:55 pm post and repeated since, but because "the arguments they employ to defend their position are filled with either falsehoods or specious reasoning"? That's not hypocricy, that's simply bad argumentation. One need not be a hypocrite to present a bad argument, nor does a good argument with proper reasoning prevent hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy, per dictionary.com, is a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. Note that neither this nor any other definition on that page even mentions the arguments used to support the position being taken. Presenting a bad argument may, in some situations, be an indicator of hypocrisy, but it is by no means definitive. Do you consider the flat-earthers as hypocrites based on their completely absurd arguments?

Since you have yet to present a survey, study, or anything objective that suggests hypocrisy is widespread, presenting only individual examples as if they are typical, and write off my presentation of examples, both on the individual and organizational level, as atypical, again without support, I'm left with the conclusion that this is purely your own personal bias. If you care to challenge that conclusion, please do so with reasoning and evidence, not simply proclamations.

Evidence of what? My own point of view? I expressed it. If you disagree, which I presume you do, I would think that we've arrived at the Agree to Disagree Threshold, because you see the situation framed in terms of strategies or approach, and I see it framed in terms of sincere adherence to a stated principle. All we're going to do at this point is go back and forth saying the same thing over and over.

Dustin Westfall: So now they are hypocrites not because they don't speak out against divorce and quickie marriages, as you originally suggested back in your Dec 03, 2:55 pm post and repeated since, but because "the arguments they employ to defend their position are filled with either falsehoods or specious reasoning"?
Luigi Novi: No, and the quoted passage by me doesn't even imply such a thing. Looking it over, I think it was pretty clear what I said. I don't know why you frame it as an either/or situation. Their inconsistency in speaking out against things that threaten marriage is one of the flaws in their position that I was referring to. The fact that they harbor this position, even though their arguments are easily refuted on the basis of evidence or reason, indicates to me that they hold it for reasons other than those they claim.

Luigi; at the risk of being accused of a gang rape (as Rona F accused people of whenever more than one nitpicker didn't agree with her) Andrew/Zarm has been active on the site as early as 13 hours ago, but nothing here........


Wonder why?.?.?.?.?.?.

Evidence of what? My own point of view? I expressed it. If you disagree, which I presume you do, I would think that we've arrived at the Agree to Disagree Threshold, ...

If it were simply your point of view, I would be glad to agree to disagree. However, you have not merely expressed your point of view, you have accused an entire group, in general, of being hypocrites. Accusations require evidence or reasoning to support them; they cannot properly stand on their own.

... because you see the situation framed in terms of strategies or approach, and I see it framed in terms of sincere adherence to a stated principle. All we're going to do at this point is go back and forth saying the same thing over and over.

I have no problem working within the "sincere adherence to a stated principle" framework, I just don't view "strategies or approach" as something wholely seperate. Since your posts on this have evaluated their adherence to their principles based on their actions and inactions, it is completely appropriate to respond with how those actions and inactions are part of a larger whole that is consistent with their stated principle.

If we are going back and forth, it's because you have yet to provide any support for your assertions, and I continue on in the hope that by presenting my own case, you might be spurred to respond in kind. The longer this goes, the more bleak that hope looks.

No, and the quoted passage by me doesn't even imply such a thing. Looking it over, I think it was pretty clear what I said. I don't know why you frame it as an either/or situation. Their inconsistency in speaking out against things that threaten marriage is one of the flaws in their position that I was referring to. The fact that they harbor this position, even though their arguments are easily refuted on the basis of evidence or reason, indicates to me that they hold it for reasons other than those they claim.

My apologies if I misunderstood, but "I wouldn't think this about most gay marriage opponents if not for the fact that all the arguments they employ to defend their position are filled with either falsehoods or specious reasoning" suggested to me that their poor argumentation was, if not the primary element, at least a significant element in your position.

As I have stated before, they are not "inconsisten(t) in speaking out against things that threaten marriage," they just do so in different ways then you seem to think they should. I have provided reasoning why they don't do it the way you prefer, which you agreed with, and presented evidence of an individual and a major group who do address the divorce issue in other ways, yet you dismiss them out of hand as atypical and repeat your assertion without ever providing anything to support it.

I have already pointed out that there are other groups whose "arguments are easily refuted on the basis of evidence or reason," (for example, young-earth creationists, moon landing hoax believers, the 9/11 truth movement, etc.) so I'll ask again, do you view those groups as hypocrites as well?

The fact that the lines of reasoning or argument that gay marriage opponents are all easily refuted, and that if you refute them in a discussion with an g.m. opponent, he/she will still cling to that position, tells me that they hold that position because they simply want to, and not because of any cogent empirical information on any danger posed by gay marriage, or morally consistent adherence to American principles of freedom or equality. (Publicly vocal opponents "speaking out" on the point is one thing, though not the only one.) I do not believe gay marriage opponents give a fig about "protecting marriage". They just plain don't feel comfortable about gays, or about leaving them alone to do as they please within their private lives. It has always been thus with those who would try to restrict the rights of others throughout history, Dustin. They will avail themselves of the freedoms given to them by Enlightenment-influenced cultures like ours, but have no problem keeping others from doing so.

Throughout this thread, I have provided support for my assertions in the form of both empirical evidence and reasoning, such as the information on the history behind marriage, as well as responses to statements that g.m. advocates want to change laws rather than opponents, that one's freedom is only intruded upon if something is taken from them that they once had, the idea that gay marriage is an "invention", etc.

Espousing a poor argument is not what hypocrisy is. The positions of Creationists, moon hoaxers and conspiracy aficionados (of the non-empirical kind) do not hold any merit, but a position bereft of merit and hypocrisy are two different things.

(This is a little out of order, but I want to address some points adjacently in order for the flow of discussion to make sense.)

The fact that the lines of reasoning or argument that gay marriage opponents are all easily refuted, and that if you refute them in a discussion with an g.m. opponent, he/she will still cling to that position, tells me that they hold that position because they simply want to, and not because of any cogent empirical information on any danger posed by gay marriage, or morally consistent adherence to American principles of freedom or equality.

I agree with the first conclusion in the abstract(again, I'm staying out of the main debate for the sake of my sanity), as if they truly had empirical information to support their position, they would present it and examine it in light of opposing evidence, as all honest debate should be conducted.

The second conclusion, however, appears to be a non-sequitor to me. How does clinging to an easily refuted argument lead one to conclude that they do not maintain a "morally consistent adherence to ... principles"? Can one not honestly believe in a falsehood, even in the face of evidence against that position?

An aside, but I don't usually see "freedom" or "equality" referred to as the guiding principles of the opposition to same-sex marriage. At best, they are referenced to appeal those on the opposition when proposing compromise alternatives ("civil unions are equal to a marriage") or arguing for complete abolition ("they have the freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else"). In my experience, the principles usually referred to, explicitly or implicitly, are their views on morality, religious teachings or general social conservativism. If you know of someone that truly is suggesting that their reason to oppose same-sex marriage is freedom or equality, please point me their way, because I would love to see that pretzel of an argument.

Unless you are meaning to say that they espouse those principles in addition to the principles used in arguments against same-sex marriage, and are therefore in conflict with all their principles. If that is the case, I would suggest that the bar is being placed too high to be reasonable. Principles are, by their nature, idealistic, especially when they are purely abstract values like freedom and equality. The likelihood of multiple abstract principles not being in conflict is infinitesimal. Heck, even a single principle like freedom can come into conflict with itself in certain situations (where does my freedom end and your freedom begin). When reconciling principles, prioritization and qualification are required. Unless that qualification is clearly self-serving or self-contradictory, a charge of hypocrisy is unwarranted.

Espousing a poor argument is not what hypocrisy is. The positions of Creationists, moon hoaxers and conspiracy aficionados (of the non-empirical kind) do not hold any merit, but a position bereft of merit and hypocrisy are two different things.

Great. I totally agree. Now, though, how do you reconcile that with the very first sentence of your post? Are the arguments of those groups not easily refuted? Do they not still cling to those positions after they have been refuted? Yet, you do not hold them to be hypocrites. What distinction exists between the groups to make the charge of hypocrisy valid?

Throughout this thread, I have provided support for my assertions in the form of both empirical evidence and reasoning, such as the information on the history behind marriage, as well as responses to statements that g.m. advocates want to change laws rather than opponents, that one's freedom is only intruded upon if something is taken from them that they once had, the idea that gay marriage is an "invention", etc.

As I said, I am staying out of the main debate, and have no doubt you would present evidence and reasoning to support your position. However, on this topic (your accusation of hypocrisy against same-sex opponents), your evidence has consisted of a single incident from the media and a series of declarative sentences like:

"Their stated motive is to 'protect marriage.' This is false, because there are many things that one would think would 'threaten' marriage, which they really don't care about. They simply focus on homosexuality because they don't like homosexuality."
or
"statements of belief and principle are not bound by issues of pragmatism"
or
"I don't believe she typifies those against gay marriage, and yes, I do believe that as a whole, certain people (bigots, censors, etc.) tend to be hypocrites."
or
"I do not believe gay marriage opponents give a fig about 'protecting marriage'. They just plain don't feel comfortable about gays, or about leaving them alone to do as they please within their private lives. It has always been thus with those who would try to restrict the rights of others throughout history, Dustin. They will avail themselves of the freedoms given to them by Enlightenment-influenced cultures like ours, but have no problem keeping others from doing so."

, all without evidence or detailed reasoning to support any of these claims. I have presented reasoning why taking action on other, less-pressing needs is counter-productive, why pragmatism is not opposed to principle, my own example of an individual and a link to an organization showing work being done by same-sex marriage opponents to minimize needless divorce. Your response to each is simply more declarative sentences. I'd suggest your first sentence in your most recent post could easily be used to describe you on this subject.

Dustin: How does clinging to an easily refuted argument lead one to conclude that they do not maintain a "morally consistent adherence to...principles"? Can one not honestly believe in a falsehood, even in the face of evidence against that position?
Luigi Novi: Um........yeah. And when someone insists on believing on an admitted falsehood, then their position that they hold that conclusion because they believe that it is true goes right out the window. When gay marriage opponents, for example, insist that gay marriage will hurt straight marriage or raise divorce, etc., and you show them evidence that it does not, and they continue to repeat that assertion without refuting your counterevidence, that shows that they are not opposed to it because any line of cogent reasoning, evidence or rational thought shows this, but simply because homosexuality makes them uncomfortable.

Dustin: An aside, but I don't usually see "freedom" or "equality" referred to as the guiding principles of the opposition to same-sex marriage.
Luigi Novi: But if you ask a gay marriage opponent if they believe in those things, they will naturally say "yes", and if you ask them how their position on gay marriage is consistent with this, they will rattle off lines of Astroturf Logic from the Gay Marriage Opposition Playbook to rationalize how it supposedly is. I never said that their "reason to oppose same-sex marriage is freedom or equality." That is simply your distortion of my statements.

Dustin: Now, though, how do you reconcile that with the very first sentence of your post?
Luigi Novi: I don’t, since that one sentence is not meant to be read in isolation from that entire paragraph. But if there is one sentence from that paragraph that can explain my view of why they're hypocrites, the last one probably does it.

Dustin: Are the arguments of those groups not easily refuted? Do they not still cling to those positions after they have been refuted? Yet, you do not hold them to be hypocrites.
Luigi Novi: One more time: Espousing an argument that is easily false or refuted, and continuing to cling to it after it has been so, is not what hypocrisy is, and I never said nor implied that it was. You are taking two distinct observations I have made about gay marriage opponents, and inferring a causal, or syllogistic relationship between them. There is none, I never said nor implied that there was. You misunderstood there to be one, and I made this clear in my last two posts.

Dustin: ...all without evidence or detailed reasoning to support any of these claims.
Luigi Novi:

"Their stated motive is to 'protect marriage.' This is false, because there are many things that one would think would 'threaten' marriage, which they really don't care about. They simply focus on homosexuality because they don't like homosexuality."
If someone wants to argue that gay marriage will threaten straight marriage, then the burden to provide some line of empirical evidence or reasoning for this is on them. For my part, I provided evidence that gay marriage does not have this effect in my March 24, 2009 post.

"statements of belief and principle are not bound by issues of pragmatism"
This is a statement of reason rather than evidence. One does not need to consider issues of pragmatism in order to be consistent in stating or adhering to their beliefs. You yourself said that this was “fine in the abstract”.

"I don't believe she typifies those against gay marriage, and yes, I do believe that as a whole, certain people (bigots, censors, etc.) tend to be hypocrites."
This is a statement of observation/opinion based on my interaction with those with whom I’ve discussed issues like this. I don’t think that it’s the sort of thing that lends itself to scientific endeavors like surveys or studies, because the hypocrisy that I observe only comes into high relief when you challenge these beliefs in a debate or discussion. The best way I can think to sum up the “evidence” of this is to restate the aforementioned last sentence of the first paragraph from my post above: There are certain groups of people throughout the history of Enlightenment-influenced free societies, chief among them bigots and censors, who will avail themselves of the freedoms given to them by those societies, but have no problem keeping others from doing so.” Do you dispute that this accurately describes some people, Dustin? Should I “demand evidence” from you for this viewpoint?

"I do not believe gay marriage opponents give a fig about 'protecting marriage'. They just plain don't feel comfortable about gays, or about leaving them alone to do as they please within their private lives. It has always been thus with those who would try to restrict the rights of others throughout history, Dustin. They will avail themselves of the freedoms given to them by Enlightenment-influenced cultures like ours, but have no problem keeping others from doing so."
See above answer.

There are 20 New Jersey state senators who should be arrested for perjury. When they took office, they swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution. Instead, they trampled it today.

A bill to legalize same-sex marriage was defeated in the state senate today 20-16. In the aftermath of the Lewis v Harris decision that gay couples have a constitutional right to civil marriage or its exact equivalent, the NJ legislature passed a civil union law. The law included provision for a committee to study the equality issues involved in a two-tiered marriage/civil union system.

Even before the committee's report came out, UPS proved that the two are not equal by trying to exploit the difference in title.

Two other states have already admitted that civil unions ate a mistake and have switched to full marriage.

Many of the senators who voted the marriage bill down today are on record as acknowledging that civil unions are a failure. Their votes against the bill are votes against equality and against the constitution they swore to defend.

Well look at that. People who claim that they want to "protect traditional marriage" by banning gay marriage are either lying or just misguided.

Over the past decade or so, divorce has gradually become more uncommon in the United States. Since 2003, however, the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have not passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. These states saw their divorce rates decrease by an average of 8 percent between 2003 and 2008. States which had passed a same-sex marriage ban as of January 1, 2008, however, saw their divorce rates rise by about 1 percent over the same period.

It's possible that the statistic simply reflects all the relatively recent gay marriages, and that it'll eventually even out.

Not exactly. Not all of the the top states allow gay marriage or even civil unions; but they also didn't see fit to Amend their Constitutions to outright ban it in order to make sure the legislature or the courts can't allow it at a later date.


Overall, the states which had enacted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage as of 1/1/08 saw their divorce rates rise by 0.9 percent over the five-year interval. States which had not adopted a constitutional ban, on the other hand, experienced an 8.0 percent decline, on average, in their divorce rates. Eleven of the 24 states (46 percent) to have altered their constitutions by 1/1/08 to ban gay marriage experienced an overall decline in their divorce rates, but 13 of the 19 which hadn't did (68 percent).

Anti-gay legislator in DUI after leaving gay club.

What I love about the above story is that it's by Fox News.

One of my heroes, James Randi, has come out.

I had no idea. But good for him.

George Alan Rekers works behind the scenes to provide the appearance of an intellectual basis for a religiously-inspired dislike of homosexuals, writing books and papers, lecturing, etc.

Rekers co-founded The Family Research Council with James Dobson in 1983. He testified as an witness against gay adoption in Arkansas and Florida. He is also a board-member of NARTH, an organization devoted to "curing" gays of their homosexuality, which regarded by the medical/scientific community as pseudoscience.

Last month Rekers returned from a 10-day European vacation with a male prostitute.

He had picked the young fellow out from a web site that describes his sexual attributes and offered explicit services for pay, called Rentboy.com.

Dr Rekers said he just hired him to "lift his luggage". As PZ Myers said, "As I am unfamiliar with that euphemism, but I'm sure it was fun."

Oh, and by the way, Rekers is an adoptive anm frequent foster father who adopted a child.

A 16 year old boy.

I love that the guy's explanation was that he wanted to share Christ with him. That he likes to "spend time with sinners" to help them. Noble effort, pal.

He must've been using "Christ" as a double entendre for something else.

Prop 8 is struck down, at least for now.

I've been reading the full text of the ruling. It will be tough to overturn -- or at least it should be.

None of the official defendants -- the powers that be in the State government -- chose not to put on any defense beyond that they were enforcing a law that had not (yet) been overturned. Members of the organization ProtectMarriage.com were allowed to act as "defendant-intervenors" (a term that I've never seen before, but then again I'm not a lawyer).

There was no dispute about the facts of the case. The plaintiffs called eight lay witnesses (including one of the "defendant-intervenors" as a hostile witness) to present the facts, and nine expert witnesses. The defense called two expert witnesses, although several others had originally been deposed as potential witnesses. The plaintiffs found grounds to have two of those depositions read into the record, and despite their sympathy to the defendant-intervenors' cause, the final outcome of their testimony favored the plaintiffs.

Of the two defense witnesses, one could not support his expert testimony to the standards that are required by the rules of evidence, and so most of his testimony had to be considered hearsay and/or lay opinion, and therefore of little or no value.

The other was accepted as an expert in his field, and testified properly about minority politics. But he had never studied the LGBT as one of the minorities in politics, and could give no reasons why the LGBT position in the political spectrum would be, as he claimed, so different from that of any other minority. In addition, many of his writings from before the defendant-intervenors hired him suggested that the LGBT would be like other minorities, which shot his credibility to pieces.

One of the things that I really liked is that one of the defense's positions (that same-sex unions cannot naturally produce offspring) was shot down out of the gate. And the precedent that Walker used to do it came from Antonin Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v Texas:

“If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct * * * what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution’? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.”

Proof that ANYTHING can get published in book form these days.

http://www.amazon.com/Disgruntled-homosexuals-invent-Atheism-heterosexual/dp/1453730133/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281365839&sr=1-5

I love this "About the author quote": "Hello, my name is Solomon Azar- I HAVE FOUND THE ROAD TO SAFE CLEAN NUCLEAR FUSION- When this is found and understood- the energy crisis will end- I have been looking at this system since 2002 and it is perfect in every way. I finished my experiments April-2007. I have since that time tried to the best of my abilities to inform many people upon the net- there is no question It would be nice if concerned citizens would offer suggestions or help provoke a university to simply repeat my experiment to end the energy crisis-- maybe after this next global nuclear war OVER ENERGY will people learn the lesson- when presented with solutions in life FREELY- CHASE THEM."

Sure you have. Gotta love the contradictory statements, "I found the road to safe clean nuclear fusion", followed by the words, "When this is found..." Huh? I thought you just said you had found it?

I love that the book does not yet have a ranking on Amazon. Nor a review. Apparently, nobody is willing to shell out $22 for this drek. Not even its target audience.

He found the road to fusion. He hasn't found fusion. In other words, "I know my crackpot idea works but I haven't yet found the key to getting the darn thing to work yet.

Sometimes Amazon's policy of selling self-published books works (Like with the Chief's books) sometimes it leads to WTF ads like this one.

My advice to Mr. Azar - first, learn to properly spell the word "faggot". Then move on to solving the world's energy problem. One thing at a time.

I feel sorry for the science department at whatever University this guy resides near. The crank calls they must get.

That's one long title for a book.

Any longer and it would have to continued on the back cover.

Todd: My advice to Mr. Azar - first, learn to properly spell the word "fa%&*$".
Luigi Novi: Maybe he was using the old spelling from 1914, when the earliest known use of the term as the pejorative slur appeared?

John A. Lang: That's one long title for a book. Any longer and it would have to continued on the back cover.
Luigi Novi: Well, maybe he figured that since he couldn't break the records for the longest sentence held by James Joyce's Ullyses, or Jonathan Coe's ''The Rotters' Club'', that he'd better try for a different one?

Then again, those are both novels, whereas Azar's book seems intended to be non-fiction (though I use that term loosely), so maybe he should've tried for the record for longest English sentence in a non-fiction yet intellectually incoherent propaganda tirade book?

Four years ago I reported on this board about a growing movement in the UU and UCC churches for pastors to decline being agents of the state in marriages. They will still perform the religious ceremony for the couple (and this includes same-sex couples as well as cross-sex couples), but they will not sign off on the state's marriage license. Primarily, this is a protest against anti-same-sex-marriage laws. Now, a politician, who is currently serving in local government has joined in solidarity, in his private affairs, at least.

Scott M. Stringer, Manhattan Borough President, and his fiancee, Elyse Buxbaum were married this week in two separate ceremonies. On September 5, they had a religious wedding in Manhattan, but for the civil (legal) marriage on Sept. 2, they left the City, and, indeed, the entire state of New York, where many of their friends can't legally marry, and traveled to New Haven, Connecticut, where they were married by New Haven mayor John DeStefano Jr. Same-sex marriage is legal in Connecticut.

Something regarding this sensitive subject has bothered me for a while now. Why would anyone think that homosexuality is a choice? That people would willingly choose to be harassed, have prejudice and persecution against them for the majority of their lives, and in some cases, run the risk of being assaulted or even murdered by ignorant morons? Something about that doesn't quite add up, in my opinion.

Well, for you football fans out there, former Packers QB Reggie White once gave an interview where, among other things, he opined that homosexuality is "one of the biggest sins in the bible" and that it would be wrong to compare the persecution of gays to that of blacks, by stating that "homosexuality is a decision, not a race".

It turns out that White became an ordained minister and often led his teammates in prayer. I don't know about you, but if there ever was a worse representation of people of God, it would be him. I think it's really a shame that he spoke out against homosexuality the way he did, as later it cost him a broadcasting job with CBS. According to Reggie's wife, the network executives "wimped out" because of pressure from gay groups, and then added, "They were too scared of the Sodomite community."

When I heard about this, I was speechless. I wonder how others here might feel about this, if it has not already been addressed earlier and elsewhere.

While paradoxically, Christianity holds that we are "born into sin", it also says we choose to sin. If homosexuality is a sin as they claim, one must choose to act on that sin. If, however, people are born "homosexual", then they cannot have chosen to sin and therefore the argument can be made that it cannot be a sin. So, to retain their prejudices and the biblical stance against homosexuality, being gay has to be a choice/sin and not a part of human nature.

Something regarding this sensitive subject has bothered me for a while now. Why would anyone think that homosexuality is a choice?

Along that line why would anybody believe that sexual attraction is a choice anyway? I certainly never chose to be attracted to women. Once I hit puberty I just was attracted to females.

That's probably why so many "Conservative Christians" keep getting implicated in homosexual scandals. They preach about homosexuality being a disease, a choice or a temptation. Homosexuality is only a temptation if you've already got the tenancies but chose to reject them because you believe that they are wrong.

I totally forgot to add that the info about Reggie White and his wife being severe homophobes was taken from the book "A Slip of the Tongue: Offhand Remarks that Derailed High-Powered Careers" by Joel Fram and Sandra Salmans, and was published in late 2004. That meant that it included info on the South Asian tsunami and the radio DJ's who played an offensive song mocking the victims, but nothing on Hurricane Katrina, the most notable and infamous news item being Kanye West and his "George Bush doesn't care about black people" remark.

Anyway, White died sometime after the book was published, and I didn't take that into account originally. I have no idea what happened to his widow. And I also have no clue as to why White said the things he said, but the book made it clear that he had no intention on backtracking on anything he said.

TX school: no LGBT clubs.

Change.org has begun a petition for the school district to allow the club, which you can sign here.

Signed.

Chuck Norris: Schools are too gay.

You just gotta read what this nutjob wrote. I think he took a few too many karate kicks to the head.

One of the primary ways these educative platforms are spread is by recruiting and retaining faculty members who reflect and teach them. For example, citing from the polling firm of Luntz Research, Dr. Black notes that the 57 percent of faculty members represented in our most esteemed universities are Democrats (only 3 percent Republican) and 64 percent identify themselves as liberal (only 6 percent conservative). Moreover, 71 percent of them disagree that "news coverage of political and social issues reflects a liberal bias in the news media." And the No. 1 answer they gave to the question, "Who has been the best president in the past 40 years?" was Bill Clinton (only 4 percent said Ronald Reagan).

Read more: U.S. public schools: Progressive indoctrination camps http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=271521#ixzz1G5zoubMD


And that must be because it's part of some liberal conspiracy, not because they're educated and you're not.

Well, if 64 percent of them are liberal, then it only stands to reason that they'll favor Clinton over Reagan. The fact that Clinton's presidency is more recent may also be a reason.

If the poll reflected more academic or scholarly viewpoints of presidencies, then Reagan would've come out with a higher ranking.

The iPhone now can now download an app created by Exodus International, the organization that thinks it can "cure" homosexuals.

According to Change.org:

Apple doesn't allow racist or anti-Semitic apps in its app store, yet it gives the green light to an app targeting vulnerable LGBT youth with the message that their sexual orientation is a "sin that will make your heart sick" and a "counterfeit." This is a double standard that has the potential for devastating consequences.

Apple needs to be told, loud and clear, that this is unacceptable. Stand with Truth Wins Out -- demand that the iTunes store stop supporting homophobia and remove the Exodus app.

I just signed the petition.