dougfoot

@nick

"All of the complaints you have against a gay couple moving next door to you are the same ones you would have about a black couple, a muslim couple, an atheist on a motorcycle, or anybody else that would add diversity to your street.

Live and let live."
 

 

One disagreement here - I have nothing against my neighbors (as long there are no parties at 1:00 am and I'm trying to sleep). Nothing against black nor Islamic folks, as long as they are law abiding citizens, same for white folks (had a couple renting next door evicted because they were producing meth...). There are legal remedies if you pursue them. The problem is people don't pursue them until it's too late and expect the government to intervene. This is the root of my stance.

Government only makes a mess - all of the legal remedies that states have attempted to put into play to "accomodate" the "rights" of same sex couples (domestic partner laws etc.) go away once "marriage" is made available to "everyone".

If you are not married, your current arrangement becomes null and void. That wouldn't go over very well, but, it would be the law. Can't have it both ways.

Countries that have marraige defined for "everyone", those that cried they wanted it are not taking advantage of it. It looks to me it becomes a tyranny of the few over the will of the many.

Try to speak out about it in these countries and you end up slapped with some "hate speach" nonsense. 

 

The court system is a legitimate way of addressing situations where the majority imposes their will on minorities. I don't subscribe to this notion of saying that it's wrong to ask the "umpire" to make a ruling.

The unfortunate problem here is that same-sex couples and assisted suicide affect you exactly as much as you going to church affects me. These are choices made by consenting adults that do not represent crimes against anybody.

In the case of your state voting for assisted suicide, this is where people are removing constraints that the state imposes. It takes a very long time for people to get to that point on a controversial subject - which is why you guys want to remove the judicial remedies.

All of the complaints you have against a gay couple moving next door to you are the same ones you would have about a black couple, a muslim couple, an atheist on a motorcycle, or anybody else that would add diversity to your street.

Live and let live.

By the way, your point about gays already having rights is not true. I've known gays, for example, that lived for decades with their partners only to find they had no rights whatsoever, after the partner's death, and lost their apartment lease, for example, as a result of not having legal standing.

@nick

Elighten me...

Laws exists that allow a person recourse in all aspects of their life (except the recognition of a same sex relationship by the government), what purpose is it to use government to force this issue on the majority of people who don't want it? What recourse to do people have when one state recognizes their relationship, but other's don't?

I am not alone in thinking that how this issue is playing out in the courts is wrong and misguided.

Put it to a vote. This is how our country is supposed to work.

I don't agree with assisted suicide, I live in a state that has voted in favor of it twice. Does that mean I go to the courts and work there to get it overturned? No. The remedy is not in the courts but at the ballot box.

Same with this issue. The remedy in not in the courts.

Come November, Californians will vote to ammend their constitution to define "marriage" as between a man and a woman. Let them decide... again.

What one court can "do", another court can "undo". 

It's really not much different than other choices people make. You don't see these things when you're part of the entrenched group - you have to be an outsider to recognize the de facto acceptance given to life choices that have the benefit of birthright...

For example, I believe the absolute worst form of indoctrination is telling children that "he sees them when they're sleeping and sees them when they're awake"... "he hears them when they ask for things and he's to credit when things go right"... I'm not just talking santa clause, of course, I'm talking all imaginary beings (religious ones specifically intended for inclusion).

PC at its true worst is that it's shunned upon for me to openly mock people for believing that even though deaths by cancer occur to their religious group in the same statistical proportion as they occur to others, remission is god's will and death is mysterious ways. What I won't do is discriminate against you for a belief, lifestyle choice, etc. I can laugh when you say that your children are smart and I can laugh when you say whatever it is you say about what I consider modern mythology.

Gay couples do not enjoy the same freedoms to live as they choose that you do. This is because you, and others like you, won't let them. It's not your business. Keep your morality in your church and shelter your kids as you see fit. America will always be diverse because of its relentless march towards greater individual freedoms. Gay couples don't just suffer words, they are suffering actions - that's the illegal part that the courts are remedying.

You will see the day when same-sex marriage is recognized across the country... for the times they are a-changin'....

@nick

One would hope that courts interpret laws, however, recent history shows otherwise.

Part of the problem is that people have given up on the meaning of words: i.e. tolerance does not mean acceptance - to call a fish a frog doens't make it so - even if the fish wants to be called a frog.

California's problem is that they have given so much to "civil unions" that  there is no distinction between it and "marriage". The court ruled (however wrongly) that since there isn't this distinction, why have the ruse.

Marriage will always be understood to mean a union between a man and a woman, no matter how the courts try to define it. To say that a union between the opposite sex would be the same as a union of the same sex isn't logical. I look at it as a group of people who have made life choices who want those choices made acceptable - in order to do this, they have to resort to court rulings, indocrination of children through the public shcool system and any discussion to the contrary considered "hate speach" - PC at its worst. Shut down public discourse because it might be "offensive".

the courts don't make laws, they interpret them. There are laws against discrimination. If the courts say that same-sex couples are being discriminated against in the context of a law, that's not using the courts to force a position.

Basically, the "using the courts to force a position" argument works this way... when you are conservative and a court rules in your favor, it's interpreting the law, when it rules against you it's making law.

@nick

What two people do in private is their business - using the courts to force one's position is wrong - especially when it is put to the vote of the people and the outcome was contrary. If your point of view is valid, continue to persuade people to your side of the argument, put it to a vote - repeat as (if) neccesary. Using the courts (regardless of what political stripe you are) to force your way in law usually means your point of view would not stand public scrutiny. I find it ironic that those who cry wanting "democracy" are the first to use government force when the public votes differently.

how can this possibly be reconciled with "government's role in the human experience should be restricted"?