California gay marriage opponents seek 5-month delay (Congress, death, racist)

[Niners fan]

TwiloMike -

I'm not getting into a gay marriage debate with you. It's like arguing religion... what's the point? (Notice that I used the phrase sexual "orientation" instead of "preference" because that is not my purpose on this thread.) We're not going to change each other's mind.

I will note that the various court ruling imposing gay marriage have taken some of the wind out of the arguments that there is no reason for opponents - right or wrong - to push for a Federal Constitutional Amendment.

My point is that gays don't have any less rights than anyone else. I resent the court stepping in to creating that special right. I don't know how to state my case any more clearly than I have so I will leave it at that. I'm glad you share my apprehension about the power of the courts. Hopefully, that fear isn't curtailed when a ruling agrees with your politics.

In any case here are some interesting, related links:

Foes start work at once on counterattack (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BA3G10N42P.DTL&tsp=1 - broken link)
Limit on Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Protect Marriage (broken link)
(#6 says only a simple majority is needed)

[TwiloMike]

Originally Posted by Niners fan

TwiloMike -

I'm not getting into a gay marriage debate with you. It's like arguing religion... what's the point? (Notice that I used the phrase sexual "orientation" instead of "preference" because that is not my purpose on this thread.) We're not going to change each other's mind.

Where do you see in my replies to you that I'm arguing gay marriage? I am specifically talking about the court ruling, what it is based on, precedent, rights, etc.

I will note that the various court ruling imposing gay marriage have taken some of the wind out of the arguments that there is no reason for opponents - right or wrong - to push for a Federal Constitutional Amendment.

My point is that gays don't have any less rights than anyone else.

That was my point about interracial marriage also: neither blacks nor whites had any less rights than the other side. Same applied to those blacks and whites who wanted to intermarry- they had the same rights as those who didn't.

I resent the court stepping in to creating that special right. I don't know how to state my case any more clearly than I have so I will leave it at that.

You have yet, in light of the interracial marriage rulings against which you are not arguing, to show that marriage irrespective of the spouses' genders is a special right while marriage irrespective of the spouses' races isn't, even though both were brought about by courts.

In any case here are some interesting, related links:

Foes start work at once on counterattack (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BA3G10N42P.DTL&tsp=1 - broken link)
Limit on Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Protect Marriage (broken link)
(#6 says only a simple majority is needed)

That seems to be so.

[Niners fan]

Originally Posted by TwiloMike

Where do you see in my replies to you that I'm arguing gay marriage? I am specifically talking about the court ruling, what it is based on, precedent, rights, etc.

That was my point about interracial marriage also: neither blacks nor whites had any less rights than the other side. Same applied to those blacks and whites who wanted to intermarry- they had the same rights as those who didn't.
You have yet, in light of the interracial marriage rulings against which you are not arguing, to show that marriage irrespective of the spouses' genders is a special right while marriage irrespective of the spouses' races isn't, even though both were brought about by courts.

My point in this thread is that the court overstepped its bounds. The marriage laws don't address affection. They only state that a person can marry another person of the opposite sex. Everyone has that right currently, regardless of sexual orientation. It wasn't until relatively recently in history that love became part of the marriage tradition. In some countries it still isn't. If you are going to argue that everyone has the right to marry whoever they love then are you going screen people to make sure they really are "in love?" I don't like slippery slope arguments in general, but it is hard to argue for gay marriage and against polygamy because you are introducing affection into the definition. What if a group of people really love each other? Who are we to say they can't all marry?

I am not going to address the argument that being black is the equivalent of being homosexual because then we are going to get into a religious argument that serves no purpose here. I do know that many black Americans find that argument offensive.

Although I don't entirely agree with his article, I'll let Dennis Prager restate much of my argument for me:
Townhall.com::California Decision Will Radically Change Society::By Dennis Prager

[Kereczr]

Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak

Nothing should be directly decided by the people. The masses are irrelevant. People should elect experienced public servants who will implement laws.

That being said, the courts probably overstepped their bounds. This should really be decided in the State legislative level.

It was, and it was approved, Arnold vetoed it.

[Kereczr]

Originally Posted by Niners fan

If you want to go then then tell me exactly what rights that heterosexuals have that gays don't. I can't marry another man either.

Same argument used for interracial marriage btw.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Kereczr

Same argument used for interracial marriage btw.

Except that homosexuals are not a race.

[Kereczr]

Originally Posted by Fleet

Except that homosexuals are not a race.

That fact is irrelevant to my early statement ^_~.

[buildings_and_bridges]

Originally Posted by Niners fan

I am not going to address the argument that being black is the equivalent of being homosexual because then we are going to get into a religious argument that serves no purpose here.

What would that have to do with religion? Who said being a racial minority is the equivalent of being a sexual minority? It seems that TwiloMike drew parallels, but never said they were identical.

I do know that many black Americans find that argument offensive.

I know that many don't also, from having spoken with people about the issue, but what's the purpose of pointing out either fact?

[Niners fan]

Originally Posted by buildings_and_bridges

What would that have to do with religion? Who said being a racial minority is the equivalent of being a sexual minority? It seems that TwiloMike drew parallels, but never said they were identical.

TwiloMike said the same arguments apply for both interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. How can you argue the same arguments apply if you are not arguing that race and sexual orientation are comparable? His argument, when analyzed, would be that both are born that way and both are persecuted minority groups. I disagree with that analysis and I think I have been clear as to why.

All of you who are picking apart my arguments (which is fine; I welcome debate) are missing the larger picture. Four judges redefined marriage. They took what the voters said and threw it away. And the implications of that redefinition is huge. (see the Prager link I posted above) The voters defined marriage as between a man and a woman. I'm not saying that courts never have cause to block legislation. But this was split 4-3 decision. It is not clear-cut by any means. The absolute least the court can do is to stay the decision until the voters either overturn it or approve it by defeating the amendment in November.

Even if I was in favor of gay marriage I would be just as angry with the arrogance and gall of the court.

[kwflconch]

People should vote no for gay marriage and vote yes to keep the ban.