You might be a Democrat, if...

.. you agree with this guy!

So... if we take this a step further... we have to regard ANYONE who votes, or acts, against their OWN personal practices or conscience to be a 'hypocrite' that needs 'outed' for it.

This guy misses the point in SO many ways it's amazing!

FIRST OFF - his blog is titled 'POSITIVE LIBERTY'

SECOND - Like many, he shows that he doesnt understand the majority of the religious right or what they believe in.
Reader: Dear Ann Landers; I dont attend church anymore because it is full of hypocrites.

Ann Landers: Dear Reader; Where would you have them, then?

THIRD - Whatever happened to constituent advocacy? The candidate runs on a 'platform' to get elected. He doesnt run on 'his personal beliefs', except as they apply to that platform. His performance is judged by the voter as to how he adheres to his promises, among other things that might be in the public interest of the MAJORITY of his constituents.
The electee may well, stray from the platform once in office but he had better NOT stray TOO far or he is in trouble... and all you have to do is look at current Ohio politics to see the result.

Finally... the idea that in office you give up all rights to privacy, not only in your public life, but in whatever you did BEFORE you entered the Arena is loathsome.

There's a fine line, there, for sure... and your skeletons better come out of the closet - so to speak- because they are fair game. But your sex life isnt ONE of them, unless it contravenes ethics, like Foley.

But the term 'hypocrite' hangs over those issues like a beheading sword and we on the right will not forget what the left and Dems said and did about their OWN foibles... nor will I accept that conservatives MUST ALWAYS ADHERE TO a higher standard, just because we have one at all.

 

Just out of interest, how many people here agree with same sex marriage and the full benefits that go along with 'conventional' marriage? A quick show of hands would be interesting...

 

I am okay with it. I don't see a problem with it.

 

There is the personal, private side of this issue and then there are the legal issues involved (benefits, taxes, etc.).

Because I don't know all the main issues involved yet, I can't comment. But at face value, I don't have a problem. There needs to be much discussion about this though, and we must get away from our tendency to keep this issue in the closet.

Yep.

 

I agree with the concept of 'Civil Union' recognized by the state with all the benefits and responsibilities of those who join together under the religious and cultural rite of Marriage.

I, however, reserve the right to NOT accept them as 'married'. The reason for that is there is a real difference... just ONE example; how do we trace our ancestries?

In fact there are some heterosexual couples I dont regard as 'married'. May seem a small thing but small things get used as precedent for larger things.

 

But.. gee.. that's not what this thread is about, is it? That question is abotu the motivation of the 'outer's'.

Lets get back to the core issue:
What two people do with mutual consent, in the privacy of their dwelling is nobody's business as long as no one else is affected by it.

Note that's a pretty powerful agument... and one that most any reasonable person would accept. They dont have to accept sodomy as socially, culturally or religiously acceptable, but they have no right to go looking for it in others, either.

- And the fact that two men or women want to form a life partnership doesnt necessarily have anything to do with sex. And we cant say "You can marry but you cant have sex".,. but we COULD say; you may form a community family unit.

Liberals refuse to accept the REAL objection of 'the Religious Right' about homosexuality and sodomy... at first it was recognition of the right to same-sex at all but not that it wouldnt happen, rather accepting it was a slippery slope.

Now we're seeing there was a good reason to worry about that. Being allowed to openly profess is no longer enough.. 'Everyone MUST ACCEPT IT without criticism'

And if you dont, you are a reactionary fascist or a hypocrite. I have even seen this argument:
"If you say you dont care what I do in the bedroom, but then say you have a right to be against it or refuse to say it's okay.. then you are a hypocrite!"

If you want to ponder this philosophically, read the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah.. it wasnt that they were destroyed for rampant deviance, the ISSUE was that the perverts insisted on participation in the acts by those who DIDNT agree with their views.

Isnt that just a few steps from "You must come out of the closet, and you must not criticize me!" ???

 

I've got zero issue with it what so ever. Its just a BS wedge issue the right uses to stay in power while the important issues stay in the background.

Why does the goverment have to recognize marriage? It could just recognize all partnerships as Civil Unions and leave the recognition of marriage to individual churchs.

 

I have tried 3 times to write a response. Each time I find I am in conflict with myself.

I honestly believe marriage in a Christian sense is a declaration of love and caring (I am married and was in a church). I also know that it is contract between myself and my partner for material goods and should I break the contract the penalties are stiff, however for being in the game I get tax breaks and protection under law in some areas (epsecially inheritance).

Central governement needs a yard stick to manage society. The issue comes when moral judgements are made on the strenght of practical managment decisions.

I don't believe government allowing same sex marriage is an endorsment as they do not have a moral right to endorse this, I hope that it is just a realisation that there are large numbers of same sex couples that need the same legal protection as mixed sex relationships and so have provided a legal framework for this to happen in.

A public declaration of love is between two people and no-one should prohibit that, regardless of gender.

However, the conflict comes because we do want our governement to enforce other moral judgements, such as the age of consent or the right to abortion. It just so happens that the things I believe the governement should be moralistic about are likely to be different from you.

 

Yes he does make sense..

But he makes one telling point:

I agree... but they dont have the right to imply endorsement for the rest of us, either. Nor do the have the right to apply punitive sanctions to individuals or groups who do not recognize the right for same sex persons to be married.

Let's be perfectly clear here, the government did not pass a law legalizing same sex marriage. Judges legislated it from the bench, by stretching previously accepted 'Rights of Equal Protection'. The idea of that clause is to protect the rights of minorities. Tying Same Sex marriage to that is exactly the the point and illustration of a 'slippery slope'.

If civil union rights were legislated, freeing it from judicial fiat; thus negating it as precedent under the equal protection clause, many people would feel better about it.

I guess the bottom line is "What rights do fall to a 'majority view' on any issue?" We have already seen that any organization with a restrictive creed or belief system.. whether long-held or not.. can be effectively sanctioned -by the government- for those beliefs.

 

Which leads us to the often quoted, "our laws were created to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority," statement. I think.

 

Pettyfog, Can I ask, regardless of the issue, is the the abuse of the system by non-elected judiciary that is causing the main problem?

 

It is,, EXACTLY.

A woman six months pregnant can have an abortion, however if I put my dying dog out of his misery with a bullet in the head I can go to jail for it.

While the religious right (actually the mainstream churches then) expressed their feelings about Roe v Wade, we believed the 'pro choice' propaganda when they assured all that obviously it would only be first trimester.
Which makes sense to those who dont consider how law courts work... but they work not on common sense but on precedence applied.

And the marriage decision, as should have been obvious, was immediately tested, one with some guy who wanted to marry his pet, another who claimed it applied to plural marriages as well.
That they may have lost in court is not the point.. if there is standing enough to hear the case, that lends it credence.

All you needs do is look at the KELO decision to see how the law bends with the times and 'conventional wisdom'... if, fifty years ago, some city had condemned private property and handed it to another private entity for the purpose of increasing tax revenues it would have had us rolling on the floor laughing it would seem so ridiculous.
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -
Here's an opinion on it by a well read conservative blogger, Glenn Reynolds.. but, for whatever reason, he misses the point.

For a lawyer, that's unbelievably obtuse... anything legislated, even state constitutions, can be UN-legislated and/or voted out by the electorate.

The same cant be said of court decisions... we cant remove Appeals Courts or Supreme Court judges.. and UNDOING decisions is problematic, the ripple effect on re-filings, after the fact, is daunting.
IOW: Roe v Wade WONT be 'corrected' no matter what anyone fears or wishes.
The standings on particulars may be redefined to narrow application but it will never be repealed, and it shouldnt be.

 

Another well-known saying, at least to those who are interested in law, is "The law is an ass". Unfortunately too many of the current judiciary try to make it 'feel good'.

There was a good reason for the courts to be loathe to change current cultural standings.. yes, even in Marbury v. Madison

And of course applying 'feel good' and 'someone is to blame' metrics to particulars results in all sorts of problems, where a few have ruined or affected many.

If you note how school playgrounds have changed over the decades and that some districts disallow 'trespassing' on their playgrounds during non-school times, that is a 'tyranny of the minority' issue.

Every time the courts rule in negligence cases based on emotions, something like that results. If you dont believe that has anything to do with this... then you dont see the 'big picture'.

The whole gay marriage thing is based on emotional and self-esteem grounds... privacy no longer the issue, now it's recognition of the right to be considered 'just like other people'.

If it REALLY were an equal protection thing.. all civil unions would be called civil unions, hetero included. Marriage would be a religious and cultural rite.
Let the Unitarians and Episcopals duke it out among themselves as to whether they will 'marry' same sexes... but let those who dont WANT to have to acknowledge that two men are actually married have their rights, too.

 

Which brings us around to why I started this thread.. it isnt about Gay Marriage, it isnt about bigotry... it's about the right to privacy v the right to be 'recognized'.

And how an 'indignant minority' tyrannizes the rest of us.

 

Well, big developments today.. and SOME people are starting to sober up!

Quick Analysis From A New Jersey Lawyer/Prosecutor

Gay Rights Laws, Slippery Slopes, and a Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Civil Unions:

This is the same guy I referred to previously... he has realized that previous gay-related decisions, using 'equal protection' clause, actually do figure in.

I worked with and around lawyers for over twenty years... I wish I could say I was surprised.

And it points out to me, what I had seen serving jury duty, it's hard to find a good lawyer.

 

Violating fair use... as some hate my links:

I've heard of double talk.. but that seems a redundant paragraph

But, if 52% FAVOR it, how it's worded will be the key, right?

THAT is a little troubling... I think most citizens appreciate the difference, just as they do between marriage and civil union

So... at the end of it, reasonable people arent. necessarily, being 'homophobic' when they oppose gay marriage...
and, the pollsters thought they were doing clarification of the two methods for giving due process, though there's an obvious difference between federal and state prohibition which they didnt address... but the reporter mucked it up, again, when he or she kept saying the same thing with different semantics..

 

Don't "hate links, per se. But your most recent post is more user friendly than opening new browser windows.

Substantively, I wonder how much of the argument is equal protection, how much is full faith and credit, how much is freedom of movement among the states, and how much is interstate commerce related. This onion has many layers, but generally the whole thing stinks. Government sanctioned marriage was a necessary evil(?), but creates as many unresolved issues as it tried to resolve.