Personally, I don't really care what two grown men with non-standard sex drives do on their own time...
one little nitpick... this whole "gay marriage" issue applies to two women, too. i know lesbians hate the fact that all "gay" issues are immediately associated with the concept of two men. i know i saw a least a few pictures of women tying the knot in san fran recently.
i dunno. i have some ties and sympathy to these issues. a lesbian friend of mine was a successful, affluent doctor in a small town north of here. she tried to be closeted about it because of the close-mindedness of many of her associates and neighbors. well, the wife of a local political figure came in needing to be checked out, as her secret female lover had been diagnosed with an std. trying to be supportive, my friend confided that it was okay, that she understood and she was a lesbian, too. well, that not only freaked out the woman, but she was so ashamed that she told her husband, not about the affair, but that my friend had tried to come on to her. not only was my friend's medical license revoked on some utter lies, but she was outed forcibly to the town in every conversation this guy could have and essentially run out of town by every service sector the man had connections to. she's never been able to practice medicine again, and has done her best to make a living ever since.
i know it doesn't have anything direct to do with this thread, but it just scares me how horrible people can treat each other over bias and fear.
edit: slightly edited, like "she was lesbian" -- last i checked, she still is.
not only was my friend's medical license revoked on some utter lies, but she was outed forcibly to the town in every conversation this guy could have and essentially run out of town by every service sector the man had connections to.
THAT is hate. It's extremely unfortunate that that happened to your friend. Though I and many others don't agree with homosexuality, I would NEVER advocate that a person's reputation, career, well-being, etc. be jeopardized or ruined because of their sexual orientation.
Though I and many others don't agree with homosexuality, many of us approach gays and lesbians with the same love and compassion that we'd give anyone else. You who accuse us of being intolerant or "hating" need to understand that there can be a division and separation between accepting the person and accepting their lifestyle.
I absolutely despise smoking. I think it's a dirty, unhealthy, deplorable habit. That said, I have many friends at work who smoke. I don't dislike the people at all. I think they're wonderful people. Their habit is disgusting though. Think of this difference as the way that I see homosexuals.
I absolutely despise smoking. I think it's a dirty, unhealthy, deplorable habit. That said, I have many friends at work who smoke. I don't dislike the people at all. I think they're wonderful people. Their habit is disgusting though. Think of this difference as the way that I see homosexuals.
That is so insulting. Being gay is not an addiction, it is not a habit. It is not something that is picked up or chosen. Sexuality is a fundamental, unchangeable, core attribute of what a person is, whether gay, straight or neither.
This country was founded on having MORE rights and tolerance... not less... not treating SOME people differently.
96% of white were against mixed race marriages when laws banning it were struck down. That's democracy at work too ya know.
Polls are not democracy.
Actually the country was founded over a tax revolt due to lack of represenation of the colonies before the King.
It was founded as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is about represenation and the will of the people. How can you declare the country was founded on tolerance when SLAVERY was written into the Constitution for goodness sakes?!?!
"The people" decided slavery was bad enough to go to war with themselves over and then "the people" enacted several changes via majority votes to get rid of slavery.
Taxation without represenation caused the revolt, and the revolt was about PEOPLE being represented and enforcing their will via the vote.
He has always said he supported domestic partnership rights. He, like many others, just don't want judges redefining concepts of society for them. Who wants a judicial monarchy? If the people want homosexual marriage, let them vote to support and enact it. From the polls I heard recently, California is pretty close, but if one of the most liberal states still can't muster up 50% support, then it's time has not come yet.
BTW, everyone's favorite blogmaster shares pretty much my view. I find it amazing that I don't see this quoted all over the boards. Let's sell Pfflam and Kirk, among others starting calling this guy a hateful backward country hick who is a bigoted right wing religious fanatic.
From Talking Points Memo, Joshua Marshall...
Quote:
Andrew Sullivan has been commenting on this at some length in the last few days. But it's amazing to watch how San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's act of inverted civil disobedience (a Mayor violating the seemingly clear letter of the law in the cause of a higher principle of equality) has unleashed the floodgates around the country. The county in New Mexico, which briefly started issuing marriage licenses, has now apparently reversed itself. But I think Andrew is right that this spate of marriages -- at least in San Francisco and perhaps now in other locales -- has suddenly made this whole issue concrete and human in a way it simply wasn't before.
I'm not sure that makes the movement's eventual success more likely. But it clearly makes it impossible for anyone to ignore. It now has to be confronted across the political spectrum -- by some eagerly, and by others with great reluctance.
I must confess to a deep ambivalence about same-sex marriages. It's not one of belief or values, but one of pragmatism, at least as I understand it -- and yet a pragmatism I'm not entirely comfortable with.
I strongly support civil unions -- the ability of gay and lesbian couples to solemnize their unions and enjoy the whole raft of civil protections, privileges and obligations that heterosexual couples do through marriage -- survivorship rights, the ability to visit and make decisions for a sick spouse in the hospital, etc. Anything less just conflicts with everything I believe is right and just.
My reason for not supporting gay marriage -- and I think there's a difference between opposing and not supporting, in this case -- is that it seems like a step that would trigger a backlash that would a) quite possibly prevent the adoption even of civil unions and b) provide a tool for conservatives to win elections and thus prevent or turn back various other progressive reforms that are no less important than this one. (Of course, this hybrid reasoning has all manner of uncomfortable echoes from the middle decades of the 20th century.)
In other words, when I say that I don't support gay marriage, my reasoning and rationale are inextricably tied up with my sense of the larger political context in which the question arises -- what's possible and what's not, and what the larger political repercussions would be. In fact, I find the two parts of the equation difficult to untangle even in my own head. (If there's an undertone of uncertainty or moral awkwardness you recognize in this post it likely stems from my feeling that the open embrace of gay marriage from so many unexpected quarters shames what seems to me to be my own timidity.)
I don't think these concerns about broader political repercussions can be easily or honestly ignored. And yet if we posit a country in which there is marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for gays and lesbians, then, paradoxically, I think the state-imposed stigma becomes even greater than it is now. Not entirely so, but at least by one measure.
Today we have marriage. It's a state-sanctioned institution for men and women. The state just, by and large, isn't involved in homosexual relationships. Now, I know that there are laws on the books in many states that definitely do involve the state in same-sex relationships adversely. And in practice, the state can have much less than a hands-off approach.
Yet, if we have marriage (for straights) and civil unions (for gays), then you have the state being in the business of solemnizing and recognizing both kinds of relationships, but in a way that clearly gives preference -- even if just symbolically -- to straights. Once you make the leap to civil unions, this sort of public denigration of same-sex relationships seems hard to justify, and full gay marriage seems hard not to embrace.
I know that little in these ideas or formulations is novel. They just give a sense of my thoughts on the issue, and my wrestling with it. But the images of happy newlyweds in San Francisco is jostling my own calculus of pragmatism and right.
Actually the country was founded over a tax revolt due to lack of represenation of the colonies before the King.
It was founded as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is about represenation and the will of the people. How can you declare the country was founded on tolerance when SLAVERY was written into the Constitution for goodness sakes?!?!
"The people" decided slavery was bad enough to go to war with themselves over and then "the people" enacted several changes via majority votes to get rid of slavery.
Taxation without represenation caused the revolt, and the revolt was about PEOPLE being represented and enforcing their will via the vote.
Nick
You're wrong and you know it. You're just avoiding as usual.
Either admit that the United States is pro civil rights and tolerance or admit that you're against it.
He has always said he supported domestic partnership rights. He, like many others, just don't want judges redefining concepts of society for them. Who wants a judicial monarchy? If the people want homosexual marriage, let them vote to support and enact it.
But if it's already allowed by the Constitution, what's left to decide upon?
You're wrong and you know it. You're just avoiding as usual.
Either admit that the United States is pro civil rights and tolerance or admit that you're against it.
I see we just make assertions nowadays, no support necessary.
I never said that the United States is not pro-civil rights. Learn to read for goodness sake. He claimed it was founded on that premise. It was founded on represenational government. Over time that represenational government has lead to more rights for all.
But don't sit there and claim the U.S. was founded with the end all be all of civil rights agendas when slavery was written into the Constitution, when that same Constitution was able to affirm Dred Scott and when it needed a nice little war and several amendments to CLARIFY that whole civil rights issue.
Depending upon how strongly you consider them related to civil rights, I see no fewer than EIGHT amendments to the Constitution all relating to civil rights.
Does the United States have a very strong civil rights agenda today? Absolutely. Was it FOUNDED with slavery, poll taxes, no direct election of senators, no voting rights for women, etc. Yes it was.
I see we just make assertions nowadays, no support necessary.
Just focus on the point. The point is that the U.S. is now founded on civil rights and tolerance. We're not living in 1776. The fact that slavery was written into the Constitution is irrelevant to this topic.
Either admit that the United States is pro civil rights and tolerance or admit that you're against it. Quit avoiding the topic.
Just focus on the point. The point is that the U.S. is now founded on civil rights and tolerance. We're not living in 1776. The fact that slavery was written into the Constitution is irrelevant to this topic.
Either admit that the United States is pro civil rights and tolerance or admit that you're against it. Quit avoiding the topic.
Actually I think the founding fathers intent for the United States is quite relevant to all topics concerning our laws and rights. The point is they launched an experiment of a self-governing people. That experiment is still being conducted today.
I really think you are not reading my posts.
From me... a couple posts above.
Quote:
Does the United States have a very strong civil rights agenda today? Absolutely.
Probably if it is allowed by the Constitution since I don't recall the issue being federalized or ruled on by the Supreme Court.
Nick
Very good Nick. Now if you'll either admit that the Constitution supports civil rights, and it's not just a temporary political agenda, then you'll have answered the question.
Also, if you'd state that you're against civil rights then you'll still have an answer.
Very good Nick. Now if you'll either admit that the Constitution supports civil rights, and it's not just a temporary political agenda, then you'll have answered the question.
Also, if you'd state that you're against civil rights then you'll still have an answer.
Woo hoo! This is fun!
Laughing with yourself, dancing with yourself, and pla...nevermind.
I'm not against civil rights, but then again last time I checked bunge was not the only entity on this planet allowed to define what civil rights are and who gets what with regard to them.
I've obviously declared you against civil rights since a DNA test can get me off death row, but not out of a simple family court. You've even said you support men being forced to support children they've never seen, never fathered, never met, nothing. There are plenty of groups arguing for and against various "rights" they claim they should have. Not agreeing with all of them does not make you against civil rights.
There are plenty of groups arguing for and against various "rights" they claim they should have. Not agreeing with all of them does not make you against civil rights.
I've asked you before to define how this particular issue doesn't amout to a civil rights issue. I'm leaning towards believing it is but could be persuaded. I don't think you're that open on this particular topic.
Comments
Originally posted by rageous
Northgate: Schwarzenegger said he was against gay marriage during his campaign. No new news there.
The point should be echoed nontheless.
g
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Personally, I don't really care what two grown men with non-standard sex drives do on their own time...
one little nitpick... this whole "gay marriage" issue applies to two women, too. i know lesbians hate the fact that all "gay" issues are immediately associated with the concept of two men. i know i saw a least a few pictures of women tying the knot in san fran recently.
i dunno. i have some ties and sympathy to these issues. a lesbian friend of mine was a successful, affluent doctor in a small town north of here. she tried to be closeted about it because of the close-mindedness of many of her associates and neighbors. well, the wife of a local political figure came in needing to be checked out, as her secret female lover had been diagnosed with an std. trying to be supportive, my friend confided that it was okay, that she understood and she was a lesbian, too. well, that not only freaked out the woman, but she was so ashamed that she told her husband, not about the affair, but that my friend had tried to come on to her. not only was my friend's medical license revoked on some utter lies, but she was outed forcibly to the town in every conversation this guy could have and essentially run out of town by every service sector the man had connections to. she's never been able to practice medicine again, and has done her best to make a living ever since.
i know it doesn't have anything direct to do with this thread, but it just scares me how horrible people can treat each other over bias and fear.
edit: slightly edited, like "she was lesbian" -- last i checked, she still is.
Originally posted by rok
not only was my friend's medical license revoked on some utter lies, but she was outed forcibly to the town in every conversation this guy could have and essentially run out of town by every service sector the man had connections to.
THAT is hate. It's extremely unfortunate that that happened to your friend. Though I and many others don't agree with homosexuality, I would NEVER advocate that a person's reputation, career, well-being, etc. be jeopardized or ruined because of their sexual orientation.
Though I and many others don't agree with homosexuality, many of us approach gays and lesbians with the same love and compassion that we'd give anyone else. You who accuse us of being intolerant or "hating" need to understand that there can be a division and separation between accepting the person and accepting their lifestyle.
I absolutely despise smoking. I think it's a dirty, unhealthy, deplorable habit. That said, I have many friends at work who smoke. I don't dislike the people at all. I think they're wonderful people. Their habit is disgusting though. Think of this difference as the way that I see homosexuals.
Originally posted by rageous
Northgate: Schwarzenegger said he was against gay marriage during his campaign. No new news there.
Well, didn't he actually say that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman?
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I absolutely despise smoking. I think it's a dirty, unhealthy, deplorable habit. That said, I have many friends at work who smoke. I don't dislike the people at all. I think they're wonderful people. Their habit is disgusting though. Think of this difference as the way that I see homosexuals.
That is so insulting. Being gay is not an addiction, it is not a habit. It is not something that is picked up or chosen. Sexuality is a fundamental, unchangeable, core attribute of what a person is, whether gay, straight or neither.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
What's the difference?
This country was founded on having MORE rights and tolerance... not less... not treating SOME people differently.
96% of white were against mixed race marriages when laws banning it were struck down. That's democracy at work too ya know.
Polls are not democracy.
Actually the country was founded over a tax revolt due to lack of represenation of the colonies before the King.
It was founded as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is about represenation and the will of the people. How can you declare the country was founded on tolerance when SLAVERY was written into the Constitution for goodness sakes?!?!
"The people" decided slavery was bad enough to go to war with themselves over and then "the people" enacted several changes via majority votes to get rid of slavery.
Taxation without represenation caused the revolt, and the revolt was about PEOPLE being represented and enforcing their will via the vote.
Nick
Originally posted by Northgate
California's distinguished governor, Mr. Arnold Schwarzenngroper has declared to fight against gay marriage.
So much for all that "social liberal" crap he espoused during his Re-Decision 2003 campaign. Liberal my ass.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/20/sa...age/index.html
He has always said he supported domestic partnership rights. He, like many others, just don't want judges redefining concepts of society for them. Who wants a judicial monarchy? If the people want homosexual marriage, let them vote to support and enact it. From the polls I heard recently, California is pretty close, but if one of the most liberal states still can't muster up 50% support, then it's time has not come yet.
BTW, everyone's favorite blogmaster shares pretty much my view. I find it amazing that I don't see this quoted all over the boards. Let's sell Pfflam and Kirk, among others starting calling this guy a hateful backward country hick who is a bigoted right wing religious fanatic.
From Talking Points Memo, Joshua Marshall...
Andrew Sullivan has been commenting on this at some length in the last few days. But it's amazing to watch how San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's act of inverted civil disobedience (a Mayor violating the seemingly clear letter of the law in the cause of a higher principle of equality) has unleashed the floodgates around the country. The county in New Mexico, which briefly started issuing marriage licenses, has now apparently reversed itself. But I think Andrew is right that this spate of marriages -- at least in San Francisco and perhaps now in other locales -- has suddenly made this whole issue concrete and human in a way it simply wasn't before.
I'm not sure that makes the movement's eventual success more likely. But it clearly makes it impossible for anyone to ignore. It now has to be confronted across the political spectrum -- by some eagerly, and by others with great reluctance.
I must confess to a deep ambivalence about same-sex marriages. It's not one of belief or values, but one of pragmatism, at least as I understand it -- and yet a pragmatism I'm not entirely comfortable with.
I strongly support civil unions -- the ability of gay and lesbian couples to solemnize their unions and enjoy the whole raft of civil protections, privileges and obligations that heterosexual couples do through marriage -- survivorship rights, the ability to visit and make decisions for a sick spouse in the hospital, etc. Anything less just conflicts with everything I believe is right and just.
My reason for not supporting gay marriage -- and I think there's a difference between opposing and not supporting, in this case -- is that it seems like a step that would trigger a backlash that would a) quite possibly prevent the adoption even of civil unions and b) provide a tool for conservatives to win elections and thus prevent or turn back various other progressive reforms that are no less important than this one. (Of course, this hybrid reasoning has all manner of uncomfortable echoes from the middle decades of the 20th century.)
In other words, when I say that I don't support gay marriage, my reasoning and rationale are inextricably tied up with my sense of the larger political context in which the question arises -- what's possible and what's not, and what the larger political repercussions would be. In fact, I find the two parts of the equation difficult to untangle even in my own head. (If there's an undertone of uncertainty or moral awkwardness you recognize in this post it likely stems from my feeling that the open embrace of gay marriage from so many unexpected quarters shames what seems to me to be my own timidity.)
I don't think these concerns about broader political repercussions can be easily or honestly ignored. And yet if we posit a country in which there is marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for gays and lesbians, then, paradoxically, I think the state-imposed stigma becomes even greater than it is now. Not entirely so, but at least by one measure.
Today we have marriage. It's a state-sanctioned institution for men and women. The state just, by and large, isn't involved in homosexual relationships. Now, I know that there are laws on the books in many states that definitely do involve the state in same-sex relationships adversely. And in practice, the state can have much less than a hands-off approach.
Yet, if we have marriage (for straights) and civil unions (for gays), then you have the state being in the business of solemnizing and recognizing both kinds of relationships, but in a way that clearly gives preference -- even if just symbolically -- to straights. Once you make the leap to civil unions, this sort of public denigration of same-sex relationships seems hard to justify, and full gay marriage seems hard not to embrace.
I know that little in these ideas or formulations is novel. They just give a sense of my thoughts on the issue, and my wrestling with it. But the images of happy newlyweds in San Francisco is jostling my own calculus of pragmatism and right.
-- Josh Marshall
Look I support the endorsement fallacy!
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually the country was founded over a tax revolt due to lack of represenation of the colonies before the King.
It was founded as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is about represenation and the will of the people. How can you declare the country was founded on tolerance when SLAVERY was written into the Constitution for goodness sakes?!?!
"The people" decided slavery was bad enough to go to war with themselves over and then "the people" enacted several changes via majority votes to get rid of slavery.
Taxation without represenation caused the revolt, and the revolt was about PEOPLE being represented and enforcing their will via the vote.
Nick
You're wrong and you know it. You're just avoiding as usual.
Either admit that the United States is pro civil rights and tolerance or admit that you're against it.
Originally posted by trumptman
He has always said he supported domestic partnership rights. He, like many others, just don't want judges redefining concepts of society for them. Who wants a judicial monarchy? If the people want homosexual marriage, let them vote to support and enact it.
But if it's already allowed by the Constitution, what's left to decide upon?
Originally posted by bunge
You're wrong and you know it. You're just avoiding as usual.
Either admit that the United States is pro civil rights and tolerance or admit that you're against it.
I see we just make assertions nowadays, no support necessary.
I never said that the United States is not pro-civil rights. Learn to read for goodness sake. He claimed it was founded on that premise. It was founded on represenational government. Over time that represenational government has lead to more rights for all.
But don't sit there and claim the U.S. was founded with the end all be all of civil rights agendas when slavery was written into the Constitution, when that same Constitution was able to affirm Dred Scott and when it needed a nice little war and several amendments to CLARIFY that whole civil rights issue.
Depending upon how strongly you consider them related to civil rights, I see no fewer than EIGHT amendments to the Constitution all relating to civil rights.
Does the United States have a very strong civil rights agenda today? Absolutely. Was it FOUNDED with slavery, poll taxes, no direct election of senators, no voting rights for women, etc. Yes it was.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
But if it's already allowed by the Constitution, what's left to decide upon?
I didn't know Bush had made you a recess appointment to the Supreme Court.
Congratulations.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I didn't know Bush had made you a recess appointment to the Supreme Court.
Congratulations.
Nick
But if it's already allowed by the Constitution, what's left to decide upon?
Originally posted by trumptman
I see we just make assertions nowadays, no support necessary.
Just focus on the point. The point is that the U.S. is now founded on civil rights and tolerance. We're not living in 1776. The fact that slavery was written into the Constitution is irrelevant to this topic.
Either admit that the United States is pro civil rights and tolerance or admit that you're against it. Quit avoiding the topic.
Originally posted by bunge
Just focus on the point. The point is that the U.S. is now founded on civil rights and tolerance. We're not living in 1776. The fact that slavery was written into the Constitution is irrelevant to this topic.
Either admit that the United States is pro civil rights and tolerance or admit that you're against it. Quit avoiding the topic.
Actually I think the founding fathers intent for the United States is quite relevant to all topics concerning our laws and rights. The point is they launched an experiment of a self-governing people. That experiment is still being conducted today.
I really think you are not reading my posts.
From me... a couple posts above.
Does the United States have a very strong civil rights agenda today? Absolutely.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
But if it's already allowed by the Constitution, what's left to decide upon?
Probably if it is allowed by the Constitution since I don't recall the issue being federalized or ruled on by the Supreme Court.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Does the United States have a very strong civil rights agenda today? Absolutely.
Either admit that the United States is pro civil rights and tolerance or admit that you're against it.
Originally posted by trumptman
Probably if it is allowed by the Constitution since I don't recall the issue being federalized or ruled on by the Supreme Court.
Nick
Very good Nick. Now if you'll either admit that the Constitution supports civil rights, and it's not just a temporary political agenda, then you'll have answered the question.
Also, if you'd state that you're against civil rights then you'll still have an answer.
Woo hoo! This is fun!
Originally posted by bunge
Very good Nick. Now if you'll either admit that the Constitution supports civil rights, and it's not just a temporary political agenda, then you'll have answered the question.
Also, if you'd state that you're against civil rights then you'll still have an answer.
Woo hoo! This is fun!
Laughing with yourself, dancing with yourself, and pla...nevermind.
I'm not against civil rights, but then again last time I checked bunge was not the only entity on this planet allowed to define what civil rights are and who gets what with regard to them.
I've obviously declared you against civil rights since a DNA test can get me off death row, but not out of a simple family court. You've even said you support men being forced to support children they've never seen, never fathered, never met, nothing. There are plenty of groups arguing for and against various "rights" they claim they should have. Not agreeing with all of them does not make you against civil rights.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
There are plenty of groups arguing for and against various "rights" they claim they should have. Not agreeing with all of them does not make you against civil rights.
I've asked you before to define how this particular issue doesn't amout to a civil rights issue. I'm leaning towards believing it is but could be persuaded. I don't think you're that open on this particular topic.
Gay marriage, how is it not a civil rights issue?