WFO Racer, all your post tells me is that you've listened to too much Michael Savage and other conservative talkers, and internalized their ridiculous talking points. It also shows that you have not read the decision of the California Supreme Court, which in fact sits in Sacramento (not in San Francisco), and consists of six Republican appointees and only one Democratic appointee. Chief Justice Ronald George, who is often cited as one of the more conservative voices on the court, wrote the majority opinion in In re Marriage Cases.

You're absolutely right that life isn't fair about a lot of things. But this country was founded on the principle of the rule of law and legal protection of minorities from the unrestrained passions of the majority. Obviously, this comes from the fact that the original colonists that formed this nation understood - and feared - the danger of unbridled majority rule. That is why the Federal Constitution prescribes such complicated procedures for the passage of legislation, and such an onerous procedure for amending the Constitution itself. Surely you enjoy the rights, obligations, and protections which the law provides you.

What if your son is gay? Would you look into their eyes and tell them that his life is worth less than your daughter's? That's what you tell him when you say "I look forward to giving my daughter away in marriage, but you will never deserve to ratify your relationship with marriage."

I hope that you would not, but there are, as you say, homophobes in the world who would have no moral dilemma about shoving their children onto the street, bruised and bloodied, for coming out as gay.

But racism has been repudiated, though it still exists. Sexism has been repudiated, though it still exists. Homophobia is the next battleground, and in time, the rights of my friends and relatives who are gay will be vindicated because the Constitution guarantees them the equal protection of the law. The will of the majority does not matter when it comes to protecting and guaranteeing the equal protection of the law for minorities who cannot protect themselves at the ballot box.

I can't force you to accept homosexuals into your life as friends, the same way as I can't force you to be friends with Blacks or Latinos. But in the eyes of the law, all American citizens are equal, and the law can enforce equal treatment. De-segregation of schools, as you can imagine (or may remember) was intensely unpopular, but necessary and was the right thing to do. The same is true of providing gays with the rights and obligations of the legal entanglement we call marriage.

Quick2k

 

If we're going to "legalize" gay marriage, why not legalize polygamy, beastiality, orgies, prostitution, drugs, incest, and so on?

Where does it stop? Where do you draw the line? Where does morality and right/wrong make a stand?

 

Corey, just as the abolishment of slavery and woman's suffrage are the morally correct things to do, my belief is that gay marriage is morally correct as well, and should be upheld by the law as equal to any other marriage the law recognizes. There is nothing immoral about gay marriage, or being gay in the first place, period.

Think about the purpose of marriage today - for some, it's a very religious act. But for others, religion doesn't play even the slightest role and it's all about the legal rights granted to a married couple. Rights of inheritance, rights to share monies, rights to medical records, rights to pensions, etc. etc. If we allow non-religious marriage, I cannot see any reason whatsoever to disallow gay marriage, because while religion seems to reject gay marriage it certainly has a place in the secular world.

 

They will as soon as they find a way to tax it.

 

Orgies are completely legal. Incest is illegal because it leads to a higher incidence of genetic disease. Prostitution is legal in Nevada, outside of Las Vegas. Likewise, prostitution is de-facto legal but-for commercialized rings of elite escorts and streetwalkers, who are the primary (and disproportionate) target of state enforcement efforts. Prostitution is the world's oldest profession, they say, and keeping it illegal simply ensures that sex workers can be victimized by their employers and customers.

Drugs ought to be legalized and taxed, just like alcohol and nicotine. Essentially, the war on drugs has resulted in the levying of taxes on drugs, but the increased revenue goes to drug cartels, organized crime rings, hostile governments, and terrorist organizations, instead of to local, state, or federal government. Think of the cost savings: lower prison populations, lower enforcement costs for local governments and federal agencies, higher local tax revenues based on sales. Not to mention reduced gang violence (which, today, is fueled by competition for drug sales territory, among other things), more effective border controls, and less expropriation of dollars to the foreign organizations which feed our insatiable and unrelenting demand for mind-altering substances. Aren't Conservatives all about keeping dollars in the United States?

Clearly I do not advocate the unregulated use of any and all drugs. I see no difference between Marijuana and Alcohol. Cocaine, LSD, Heroin, MDMA, etc. are things that I have never been tempted to try, though I'm sure many have (been tempted to try, or actually tried). I think that the money saved by cutting the failed enforcement effort, which only leads to higher prices and increased violence, could then be funneled to treatment and prevention programs. A heroin addict who gets no treatment will not be cured with a 6-month jail sentence, and needs more sophisticated and intensive support

Orgies? Polyamory? Polygamy? Anal sex? "Forncation?" I fail to see how people who practice these sexual behaviors or alternative relationship structures affect my life, or the lives of their willing partners, and I could not care less what anyone chooses to do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

As for beastiality, I think that the dispositive factor is that animals cannot manifest consent, and therefore sexual contact with animals falls into the category of animal abuse and should be punished accordingly. This could be analogized (crudely) to the criminality of statutory rape of minors and others who are not legally capable of consenting to sexual contact.

Morality is a personal choice. Morality often does line up with the letter or spirit of the law, but it sometimes aligns imperfectly or not at all. Practice your morals in your home, and let everyone else practice theirs. Morals and ethics change with time, too, and the law must adapt to reflect that if it is necessary to protect the core tenets of the Constitution of this Nation.

But the law also functions to push society when society contradicts the principles on which this nation depends and believes. One day it was considered immoral to permit a white to marry a black, but we are well beyond that day. (At least, society has moved on, and if you disagree, you have been left behind). The law changed, and pushed whites to change their minds. Often this was strongly resisted, as lunch counters, buses, schools, water fountains, and restrooms were desegregated and, for the first time, Whites came face-to-face with Blacks, their siblings in American Citizenship. The same is true today, except that society discriminates against gays by denying them access to the tradition, history, and significance of "marriage" as a ratification of love and commitment. It also denies them the substantive secular rights and obligations attached to civil marriage. The law should protect their rights from the whim of the majority, which is its purpose.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Quick2k

 

Therein lies the rub: not everyone believes that. It's a much more difficult position to defend than most of the ones you've presented.

 

Because so many people are jerks, or immature, or ignorant, or weak-willed, or suffer from innumerable other human frailties.

The fact that many people fail at its implementation is an indictment of the people, not the institution. If you use the rate of failure in implementation as an indication of how useful a principle is, I can prove to you that calculus is worthless: I'll show you some final exams.

 

Slavery was practiced by the majority of this country at one point in time.

Segregation was practiced by the majority of this country at one point in time.

Inter-racial marriage was banned by the majority of this country at one point in time.

Apatheid was practiced in South Africa by the majority at one point in time.

Why aren't they still with us now?

 

wow. IBTM.

i believe that our country was founded on the principle that we can all do what we want, be 'free', *without prejudice in the eyes of the law*. The law right now makes it so gay couples are separate from straight couples. This is against what our country was founded on. Marriage as a religious issue is entirely different - if your church feels marriage can only exist between heterosexual couples, that's fine. You have the freedom to choose your religion and practice it as you see fit thanks to the rights granted you by our constitution.

the problem is this. Gay couples lose out on many many benefits of straight married couples, simply because our legal system refuses to acknowledge them. I don't care if your *religious institution (church)* refuses to marry a gay couple. I do care that our government is legislating bigotry. A marriage license should be available for any couple, or for *no couples*, not one group of couples. Bottom line, the law is essentially favoring the viewpoint of a religion or a group of religions on this matter instead of treating all of us equally.

Don't worry though, eventually all those 18-29 yr olds who voted against prop 8 will be running the country. Just as prejudice based on sex, religion, and race have been slowly slowly dying off, so will prejudice based on sexual orientation.

 

I think that, inherently due to the fact that there is a dispute, the fact that morals are relative is proven. We all share a sort of overlap of morality (thus the government, and laws), while individually all of our senses of morality are different.

Here's the point though: Government should not be about imposing a grand sense of morality, but rather it should be about preventing others from encroaching upon someone else's sense of morality--and I mean this in the way of: if you murder someone, you're affecting them. If you steal from them, etc. Obviously, there are more factors to complicate this, but, If person X marries person Y it has no bearing on person Z.

Analyzing simple models tends to be the best way to look at these things:

Essentially, look to see where the action falls on Z.

X robs from Z.
X murders Z.
X marries Y.
X attacks Z.

... More complicated laws get into...

X drives drunk and risks killing Z.
... and so on. But try wording gay marriate in a sense that involves X's action on Z....

X marries Y and therefore _____ Z? "Ticks Off" isn't a viable answer.


Government should not uphold our moral code, it should uphold our rights.
Free will. It's a motto of our country, and it is also found in Christianity, no? If not, wouldn't God be solving all of our problems? Therefore, if its a matter of free will, you can believe they're doing something wrong, (just as you can believe someone getting a divorce or not attending church is doing wrong) but you cannot make a law to stop them.