And that particular retort is more about gay bigotry as opposed to any rational legal debate on same-sex marriage

Oh my, Debby. When have you last heard a rational debate on same-sex marriage? All I've heard is religious baffoonery about the "sanctity" of marriage and how Gawd "designed" it between a man and a woman. Very little ratiionality except from the LGBT community itself. The rational debate from our countries lawmakers has warned us of the inherant dangers on that slippery slop that same-sex marriage would inevitably lead us to such as the destruction of marriage and bestiality. These are not my thoughts, they come from our mostly Republican representatives ...

And that particular retort is more about gay bigotry as opposed to any rational legal debate on same-sex marriage

Oh my, Debby. When have you last heard a rational debate on same-sex marriage? All I've heard is religious baffoonery about the "sanctity" of marriage and how Gawd "designed" it between a man and a woman. Very little ratiionality except from the LGBT community itself. The rational debate from our countries lawmakers has warned us of the inherant dangers on that slippery slop that same-sex marriage would inevitably lead us to such as the destruction of marriage and bestiality. These are not my thoughts, they come from our mostly Republican representatives in congress.

Or maybe even a sense of smug superiority smacking of telling us all
"what's good for society" as these people are not used to someone
challenging their belief system.

I think maybe I've gotten turned around here. Is your comment directed to my admittedly heated comment or towards the opponents of gay marriage?

I agree that they have a right to hold whatever ridiculous, sectarian grounded belief they want if they don't force it on others. I sense that my comments have bothered you? I can't accept the concept that we should play nice with such outrageous bigotry that comes from the opposition who are trying to limit freedom of choice based on biblical mandates. Smacks of the American Taliban to me.

I'm sure you'd be just as ravashing in a burka, Debby. I just don't want you to be forced to wear one.

From the link:

"We're disappointed in it, obviously, because it is a court once again
placing itself above the will of the people in California and creating
constitutional rights out of thin air.

Ah, the old refrain of "activist judges". Funny how the're only activist when the fundies don't agree with the decision. I suppose states rights supporters felt the same about slavery in the 19th century.

n2...judicial activism? Have you read the decision and what it was based on? If anything it is the opposite as it was based on a strict reading of the Constitution of the State of California. Just because you don't like a decision, doesn't mean it is judicial activism.

For in-depth analysis, visit this site:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/15/california/index.html

From the decision itself:

[O]ur task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, [i]but instead only to determine whether the difference i...

n2...judicial activism? Have you read the decision and what it was based on? If anything it is the opposite as it was based on a strict reading of the Constitution of the State of California. Just because you don't like a decision, doesn't mean it is judicial activism.

For in-depth analysis, visit this site:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/15/california/index.html

From the decision itself:

[O]ur task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, but instead only to determine whether the difference in official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution.

That is not what the decision is about. Did you read it? Constitution doesn't even define marriage. It is an "Equal Protection" argument, that is all people are equal under the law and that these distinctions are meaningless.

The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into "marriage." It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between "marriage" (as a religious institution) and "civil unions" (as a secular institution) -- i.e., that California law could leave the definition of "marriage"...

That is not what the decision is about. Did you read it? Constitution doesn't even define marriage. It is an "Equal Protection" argument, that is all people are equal under the law and that these distinctions are meaningless.

The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into "marriage." It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between "marriage" (as a religious institution) and "civil unions" (as a secular institution) -- i.e., that California law could leave the definition of "marriage" to religious institutions and only offer and recognize "civil unions" for legal purposes -- provided that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining "marriage" for religious purposes.

And what does single parent homes have to do with all of this?

It was directed at the opponents of gay marriage Alt. Sorry for not making that more clear.

And I would look ravishing in a burka

another *legal* denial of a child's right to a mother AND father.

Is that what really bothers you about it Jatfla? Come on, be honest with me. Again, I think you have every right to your particular beliefs about homosexuality, I really and truly mean that. I just don't think those with religous beliefs have the right to keep gays from becoming second class citizens by denying them their rights. I can't help but think that homosexuality disgusts you and if it does, I think you have every right to think that way. Matter of fac...

It was directed at the opponents of gay marriage Alt. Sorry for not making that more clear.

And I would look ravishing in a burka

another *legal* denial of a child's right to a mother AND father.

Is that what really bothers you about it Jatfla? Come on, be honest with me. Again, I think you have every right to your particular beliefs about homosexuality, I really and truly mean that. I just don't think those with religous beliefs have the right to keep gays from becoming second class citizens by denying them their rights. I can't help but think that homosexuality disgusts you and if it does, I think you have every right to think that way. Matter of fact, I think it disgusts a lot of straight people. That doesn't bother me. I'm used to dealing with straight people and I'd rather them be honest with me. But I'm here to tell you that a large part of me is gay Jafla, and I can't pray it away nor can I ever change it, because I was born that way. That may be hard for you to accept or understand that it is not changeable. But it is not. It is the same thing as my blue eyes and being left- handed.
But you bring up a good point about the divorce rate. I personally think if George W. Bush was really serious about protecting families instead of scoring cheap political points with evangelical voters, he would have dropped his ugly constitutional amendment against same sex marriage and replaced it with a constitutional amendment banning divorce.
But listen, Alt, I"m convinced that people of all faiths will more and more come to believe that discriminating against gays in any way is simply wrong--just as discrimination against blacks ro women, which was once justified on religious grounds, is wrong. It's only a matter of time honey.

I"m convinced that people of all faiths will more and more come to
believe that discriminating against gays in any way is simply
wrong--just as discrimination against blacks ro women, which was once
justified on religious grounds, is wrong. It's only a matter of time
honey.

I'm sure you're right Debby. I guess at times I feel like that old cartoon of the two vultures sitting in the tree and the caption reading, "Wait hell, I want to kill something." Of course I'm not advocating murder or violence but I am saying I get impatient. As I've mentioned before, the change on social issues like this are glacial. And at my age time is very important!

As far as jatfla is concerned, i...

I"m convinced that people of all faiths will more and more come to
believe that discriminating against gays in any way is simply
wrong--just as discrimination against blacks ro women, which was once
justified on religious grounds, is wrong. It's only a matter of time
honey.

I'm sure you're right Debby. I guess at times I feel like that old cartoon of the two vultures sitting in the tree and the caption reading, "Wait hell, I want to kill something." Of course I'm not advocating murder or violence but I am saying I get impatient. As I've mentioned before, the change on social issues like this are glacial. And at my age time is very important!

As far as jatfla is concerned, it's not so much her comments that bother me but the fact that she is like a drive by troll. She rarely stays around to engage in two way conversation. She throws out religious homilies and rarely responds to criticism. I doubt if she is capable of independent thought on these issues. Dogma tends to destroy a person's ability for rational thought.

I sometimes think that a lot of people don't know what it's really like to be gay, Alt. And it seems to me that some fundamentalists have elevated homosexuality to a pinnacle of great importance in their narrow and rigid definition of the Christian faith. All of us remember when AIDS was declared as God's punishment on those who have sinned and should be treated accordingly. However, Jesus had encounters with lepers who were also looked upon as "sinful" and he set an example for us all by reaching out to them and loving them. It seems to me that the public condemnation and ridicule of gays has been increasingly promoted by a few religious leaders and, even more importantly, the politica...

I sometimes think that a lot of people don't know what it's really like to be gay, Alt. And it seems to me that some fundamentalists have elevated homosexuality to a pinnacle of great importance in their narrow and rigid definition of the Christian faith. All of us remember when AIDS was declared as God's punishment on those who have sinned and should be treated accordingly. However, Jesus had encounters with lepers who were also looked upon as "sinful" and he set an example for us all by reaching out to them and loving them. It seems to me that the public condemnation and ridicule of gays has been increasingly promoted by a few religious leaders and, even more importantly, the political acceptance of this treatment tends to encourage this kind of discrimination.
Does everyone remember after the terrorist attack on 9/11 Jerry Fallwell saying that pagans, abortionists, feminists and gays and lesbians who were actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, he pointed the finger in their face and said "you helped this happen." Pat Robertson, quickly agreed.
But you know what? Even thought there are black marks on our historical treatment of certain groups of Americans, the vast majority of Americans will choose equality every time. Leaders of the religious right know that. that's why they accuse gays and lesbians of demanding "special rights". Gays and lesbians aren't demanding anything special, just the same rights as every other American: the right to get a job, get married, raise a family--and keep the cops out of their bedroom. God bless America.

Jesus had encounters with lepers who were also looked upon as "sinful"
and he set an example for us all by reaching out to them and loving
them.

It's funny how you bring up Jesus when in fact he's rarely mentioned at all by the homophobic evangenitals. In fact, I don't believe he said anything one way or another specifically related to homosexuality. But that doesn't seem to interest them in the slightest. Their desire is to preach hate and loathing. A doctrine of love and acceptance would simply get in the way.

the political acceptance of this treatment tends to encourage this kind of discrimination.

Like the Defence of Marriage Act?

Jerry Fallwell sayi...

read more»

Jesus had encounters with lepers who were also looked upon as "sinful"
and he set an example for us all by reaching out to them and loving
them.

It's funny how you bring up Jesus when in fact he's rarely mentioned at all by the homophobic evangenitals. In fact, I don't believe he said anything one way or another specifically related to homosexuality. But that doesn't seem to interest them in the slightest. Their desire is to preach hate and loathing. A doctrine of love and acceptance would simply get in the way.

the political acceptance of this treatment tends to encourage this kind of discrimination.

Like the Defence of Marriage Act?

Jerry Fallwell saying that pagans, abortionists, feminists...

And don't leave out the secular humanists. Atheists too. In fact, fewer people would vote for an atheist than a gay for public office according to recent polls.

Leaders of the religious right know that. that's why they accuse gays and lesbians of demanding "special rights".

I have a theory that what they're really afraid of is losing their claim to special privilege for themselves. How often do we hear of christians being "persecuted". Of course it's a fiction. But it fits in well with their idea that this is a christian nation and they therefore are entitled to special priviledge.

Gays and lesbians aren't demanding anything special, just the same
rights as every other American: the right to get a job, get married,
raise a family--and keep the cops out of their bedroom.

Oh, there you go with your rational thought again. Tsk, tsk. Before you know it I suspect you'll start to get "uppity". My word, thinking you are entitled to the same rights as True Christians©.