One Judge vs 7 million votes

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Mob rule doesn't allow you to vote the minority's rights away.

It's a pretty big stretch to call a ballot measure formally voted and enacted in accordance with the law and "mob rule".

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

It's a pretty big stretch to call a ballot measure formally voted and enacted in accordance with the law and "mob rule".

I used "tyranny of the majority" earlier in the thread and SteamWake laughed at me. Tryin to switch it up for variety's sake. How's "majoritarianism?" "Ochlocracy?"

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

It's a pretty big stretch to call a ballot measure formally voted and enacted in accordance with the law and "mob rule".

On the other hand if the majority actually takes away the rights of the minority, what do you call it?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

On the other hand if the majority actually takes away the rights of the minority, what do you call it?

Where is it written that gays have said rights to GAY MARRIAGE to be taken away to begin with?

[Aramike]

If a straight person has the right to marry the person of his/her choice, and a gay person doesn't, they do not have the same rights, period.

Wrong. You mis-stated it. A straight person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex of their choice. The same as a gay person. Whether or not you "like" reality doesn't make the principle unreal.

Frankly, I really don't give a damn one way or the other on the issue. That being said, this judge was out-of-line. I guess that most people have an inability to reconcile what they WANT to be true with what reality dictates is true.

If it were up to me, gays would have the same rights to unions as heterosexual couples, but it would be termed differently, and I think it is small and trite of gay activists to repudiate such a gesture repeatedly simply because they want a term traditionally applied to straights.

[razark]

How does it harm anyone if gays are allowed to marry?

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by razark

How does it harm anyone if gays are allowed to marry?

I myself would like to know the answer to that, but nobody has presented one yet.


EDIT: What I've been able to surmise so far is that it scares the bejeezus out of those who oppose it. That leads to another question of: Why?

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by krashkart

I myself would like to know the answer to that, but nobody has presented one yet.

From a report on a pre-trial hearing last fall:

In a San Francisco courtroom two weeks ago, a prominent lawyer opposed to same-sex marriage made a concession that could mark a turning point in the legal wars over the purpose and meaning of marriage.

The lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, has studied the matter deeply, and his erudite briefs are steeped in history. He cannot have been blindsided by the question Judge Vaughn R. Walker asked him: What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?

“Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know,” Mr. Cooper said. “I don’t know.”

Apparently they were never able to come up with anything better than that.

Oh wait, I 'member now. Gay marriage will destroy and de-sanctify all straight marriages! For those already-married heteros out there, this ruling has nullified your unions in the eyes of God and the state. Also, the Keepers of the Gay Agenda will be sending you the contact info for the same-sex partner you will now be required to marry instead. (Some of you unlucky ones will have to be paired up with animals and the occasional inanimate object, but you know how it goes... slippery slope and all that.)

Only, you know, NOT.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by razark

How does it harm anyone if gays are allowed to marry?

How does it harm anyone is gays are allowed the same exact rights as marriage but it is termed something else out of respect?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

How does it harm anyone is gays are allowed the same exact rights as marriage but it is termed something else out of respect?

Because separate but equal is inherently unequal.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Aramike

How does it harm anyone is gays are allowed the same exact rights as marriage but it is termed something else out of respect?

It is what it is.

Personally, if you want to call it something other than marriage, that's fine. Just so long as it is open to all. If you want to call everything that happens in a religious setting "marriage", then that's fine. After the couple finishes their "marriage" at the church, they can go to the courthouse and have their civil union ceremony. Of course, until they have the civil ceremony, they won't have the benefits that are currently reserved for married people.

That way, everyone is happy. Churches don't have to deal with gay marriage, and people who are not religious will be able to have a civil union without the church. People who are against the government having anything to do with it can have their marriage, and the government won't get involved.

By the way, what was the answer? Who does it harm if gays get married?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

How does it harm anyone is gays are allowed the same exact rights as marriage but it is termed something else out of respect?

How does it harm anyone to call it marriage?

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by Aramike

How does it harm anyone is gays are allowed the same exact rights as marriage but it is termed something else out of respect?

Because often that is not the case. Many civil unions do not enjoy the same benefits and even worse the courts may side with the family AGAINST the other when one dies meaning a angry family can put someone out on the street quickly.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Wrong. You mis-stated it. A straight person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex of their choice. The same as a gay person. Whether or not you "like" reality doesn't make the principle unreal.

Wrong. You mis-represented it. Rights are inherent. Laws are not made to create or allow rights, they are made to restrict them. Usually this is done for protection. You want to do it for moral reasons, and this is wrong.

Frankly, I really don't give a damn one way or the other on the issue.

Then why the hostility, and the insistence? It looks like you care about it a great deal.

That being said, this judge was out-of-line. I guess that most people have an inability to reconcile what they WANT to be true with what reality dictates is true.

How was he out of line? A case was brought before his bench and he ruled on it, and created a very detailed explanation of why he ruled what he did.

You now need to explain why, if you don't care about the issue, you feel the need to attempt to dismiss it with an intentional insult to everybody who disagrees with you. How exactly does reality dictate that what you believe is true? It may be true on the face of it, but so were laws that advocated racial discrimination.

Because it's true does that necessarily mean it's right? If a law is wrong should it not be resisted because it exists? And does not your statement also apply to yourself? Are you not also unable to reconcile yourself with what is versus what you want to be true?

If it were up to me, gays would have the same rights to unions as heterosexual couples, but it would be termed differently, and I think it is small and trite of gay activists to repudiate such a gesture repeatedly simply because they want a term traditionally applied to straights.

Tradition is not always right either. Is there a possibility that you are so upset over this because you find homosexuality offensive and hate to see any concession in that direction.

Well guess what? I find the act itself not only offensive but revolting, and I hate seeing men holding hands (and fondling each other) in public. But I also realize that my morality and sensibilities might just be skewed by what I've been taught over the years.

To badly paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to love another man. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."

Bad paraphrasing, I admit, but also true.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Wrong. You mis-stated it. A straight person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex of their choice. The same as a gay person. Whether or not you "like" reality doesn't make the principle unreal.

Okay, let's say I have the right to eat all the Spam I want. You also have the right to eat all the Spam you want. But neither of us have the right to eat anything else.

The thing is, you don't like Spam. And eating Spam makes you miserable and ill. In fact, you were born with a body that gets no nourishment whatsoever from Spam.

I, on the other hand, love Spam. I was born with a body that runs perfectly fine on nothing but!

Hungry? Here, have some Spam. You can have all you want, just like me! Wait, you don't like it? You can't be happy and healthy on a diet of nothing but Spam, and would like the opportunity to eat something else? Not gonna happen. Those of us who are satisfied with Spam have defined the act of "eating" as "eating Spam," so, uh, that's all there is. When we said that bit about "the pursuit of happiness" we were only talking about people who were happy eating nothing but Spam. Sorry! But since you have the same right to eat something that nourishes me and gives you nothing but empty calories, you really don't have anything to complain about.

/falling on deaf ears