tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post910517231711753740..comments2024-03-18T17:01:07.165-07:00Comments on The Provocateur: The Irony of Tolerance: Gay Marriage and Creationismmike volpehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-90156470765245954632008-06-20T17:10:00.000-07:002008-06-20T17:10:00.000-07:00It's Miller Time.Mark in IrvineIt's Miller Time.<BR/><BR/>Mark in IrvineMark In Irvinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01614659771194841374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-2418293932235685532008-06-20T16:21:00.000-07:002008-06-20T16:21:00.000-07:00Mark, I think what was saying was that the Cali SC...Mark, I think what was saying was that the Cali SC was that not only were they making law rather than interpreting but that their making law overrode the will of the people. <BR/><BR/>Frankly, this debate is starting to lose its value. I think each side is starting to make the same point over and over. <BR/><BR/>I think we have each made our points. Neither side has really said anything new in a while.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-7181568001785838832008-06-20T15:37:00.000-07:002008-06-20T15:37:00.000-07:00"Grady the Dragon's Right Wing said... The point t..."Grady the Dragon's Right Wing said... The point that is relevant is whether a statement of the will of the people, expressed as a law, can limit a citizen's choices as to who (or what?) to marry. The people of CA, by nearly 2/3 majority, stated that the definition of marriage should be a legal binding between one man and one woman."<BR/><BR/>If the only requirement for a valid statute is the approval of a majority of citizens (let's leave aside whether it is 51% or 2/3), then what would prevent or invalidate a law approved by the majority, which would limit marriage to persons of the same genetic ethnicity, i.e. whites with whites, blacks with blacks, Filipinos with Filipinos, and so on? Or a law which would limit marriage to persons of the same religious background or belief, i.e. Lutherans with Lutherans, Jews with Jews, Catholics with Catholics, Scientologists with Scientologists (well, THAT one I could see - just kidding TomKat), and so on? <BR/><BR/>The US Supreme Court decision in "Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1" talks about certain limits on the ability of statutes to restrict marriage:<BR/><BR/>"Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated '[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry' as being 'odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.' Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100 (1943). At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the 'most rigid scrutiny,' Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate."<BR/><BR/>and <BR/><BR/>"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.<BR/><BR/>"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."<BR/><BR/>Although Loving v. Virginia was concerned with restrictions based on race, some of us think that restrictions based on gender will not survive the "most rigid scrutiny" to see whether the restriction is "necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective". Lawrence v. Texas [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf] will certainly be called upon in any analysis of this issue.Mark In Irvinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01614659771194841374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-14782757838970188722008-06-20T15:03:00.000-07:002008-06-20T15:03:00.000-07:00I propose a new state law (heck - while we're at i...I propose a new state law (heck - while we're at it, let's make it a Federal law):<BR/><BR/>"No marriage shall be valid in this state, or in any state of the Union, that has not first been approved by the California/United States Ministry of Marriage and Family Life. This provision applies to all persons without regard to age, gender, citizenship or place of residence, and applies without regard to the date or place of marriage." <BR/><BR/>Would you approve? I doubt that anyone here would approve. Why not? Because (I think) most people are of the opinion that her or his marriage (whom to marry) is her or his own personal business. Yet, most places do have some restrictions on marriage relating to age (below age "n" requires parental consent); degree of consanguinity of the parties; absence of disease; maybe a few others.<BR/><BR/>What restrictions are tolerable and why?<BR/><BR/>If anyone is interested in discussing this, I'll post it also at my own page [http://huntingsittingducks.blogspot.com/], so I don't (continue to) highjack The Provocateur's bandwidth.Mark In Irvinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01614659771194841374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-61787426856477138182008-06-20T11:56:00.000-07:002008-06-20T11:56:00.000-07:00That's exactly the point, Grady. Whenever judges m...That's exactly the point, Grady. <BR/><BR/>Whenever judges make law rather than interpreting their decisions are totally void of logic. Of course, it makes no sense that judges can claim that gay marriage is protected by the constitution because of equal protection and then at the same time limit marriage as only gay and heterosexual.<BR/><BR/>Except that the judges sensed that their decision would open up a pandora's box and they didn't want it opened, and so they put the restriction in even though it betrayed the logic of their decision.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-26878413795029695562008-06-20T11:41:00.000-07:002008-06-20T11:41:00.000-07:00Mike V:You stated that "the specifically limited m...Mike V:<BR/>You stated that "the specifically limited marriage to gays and heterosexuals. "<BR/><BR/>This plainly cannot be supported by the logic that led to their own decision - what makes a swinger marriage ( or marriage between a man and his sister, or a marriage between a woman and her cat, or a man and an underage girl ) inequal? As far as I can tell, no criteria for equal vs. inequal was stated - they just said this is equal and this is not. OOPS! That sounds like something Congress would do!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-61062971845282320732008-06-20T11:29:00.000-07:002008-06-20T11:29:00.000-07:00JustDivine:In response to Mike V ("Marriage is not...JustDivine:<BR/>In response to Mike V ("Marriage is not about professing your love."), you state:<BR/>Since when? By this logic, a lot of straight couples have got the purpose of marriage wrong too.<BR/>In fact, marriage for love is a relatively new thing. In almost all early cultures, marriages were arranged, by the parents, and the ones being married just had to hope they could stand each other (in some instances, even learn to love each other). A great example in popular culture is the scene/song "Do You Love Me" in "Fiddler on the Roof". In some cultures, this is still practiced today. At the height of Greek culture, a marriage was as totally devoid of love as possible, and sex between the spouses was as minimal as possible! The male would actually take an underage male as his sexual object, because, to them, sex had been reduced to an issue purely of power and domination! <BR/>Marriage for love' sake only became anything other than a rarity in the last few hundred years, and that only in Western civilization.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-31068091500483315492008-06-20T11:18:00.000-07:002008-06-20T11:18:00.000-07:00That is where the Cali SC tipped its hand in makin...That is where the Cali SC tipped its hand in making law rather than interpreting. <BR/><BR/>In fact, while they claimed that there is a right for gays to marry under the statute you cited that all individuals are equal under the law, the specifically limited marriage to gays and heterosexuals. As such, this ruling does NOT legalize swinger marriages, because according to the Cali SC, they aren't equal.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-20306305687517532452008-06-20T11:10:00.000-07:002008-06-20T11:10:00.000-07:00Mark in Irvine, I agree that the US SC has no juri...Mark in Irvine, I agree that the US SC has no jurisdiction to overrule the CA SC - hopefully, no one posting here thinks that they could. The point that is relevant is whether a statement of the will of the people, expressed as a law, can limit a citizen's choices as to who (or what?) to marry. The people of CA, by nearly 2/3 majority, stated that the definition of marriage should be a legal binding between one man and one woman. The CA SC ruling states that that definition denies homosexuals the right to marry, but in fact it does not - it merely denies them the right to marry *whoever they want*. Any homosexual still has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, just as I do (or would, if I lived in CA). Even within that constraint, there are further constraints - I am not allowed to marry my mother or sister, or other close female relative. If the denial of the "right to marry" is defined as "the right to marry whomever I want", then *any* constraint on who can marry whom is, by the CA SC definition, unconstitutional. This is a can of worms that I don't want opened, and was only opened by the CA SC deciding to stretch a statement in the CA Constitution much farther than it was ever intended to go - although I don't have the relevant line in front of me, it basically states that the law shall apply to all people equally (the intent being to state that none are above the law). That is a long way from stating that the (undefined) "right to marry" is actually the "right to marry whoever you want to marry", and has stepped over the boundary of interpreting the law to rewriting it. Then, to add insult to injury, they defined it in such a way that other states are forced to recognize such marriages, even in states where there is a legal ban on homosexual marriages, supported by State Constitutional definitions of marriage as being between one man and one woman - opening yet another whole can of worms that will probably end up going to the US SC - in the meantime, any homosexual couple who marry in CA must avoid going to certain states because they are criminals in those states? The list of ramifications goes on and on...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-2134914631584987252008-06-20T10:04:00.000-07:002008-06-20T10:04:00.000-07:00Good morning thinkers.Regarding my comment - "Unde...Good morning thinkers.<BR/><BR/>Regarding my comment - "Under the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to overrule the California Supreme Court decision interpreting the California Constitution." - I offer the following from a tratise on the interplay of State and Federal Constitutional law:<BR/><BR/>"The [US] Supreme Court does not review state court decisions resting on 'adequate and independent state grounds.' Efforts to obtain review of such decisions are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. [...] Justice Jackson, in Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U.S. 117 (1945), summarized the rule and its basis: 'This [US Supreme] Court from the time of its foundation has adhered to the principle that it will not review judgments of state courts that rest on adequate and independent state grounds. [T]he reason is so obvious that it has rarely been thought to warrant statement. It is found in the partitioning of power between the state and federal judicial systems and in the limits of our own jurisdiction. Our only power over state judgments is to correct them to the extent that they incorrectly adjudge federal rights'. [...] Even though the state court opinion may include an elaborate discussion of the meaning of the federal guarantee - an interpretation that may be wrong - the Supreme Court will not review if the state judges rest as well on their own constitutional provisions: a correction of the state court's interpretation would not change the outcome of the case. For example, the California Supreme Court has in recent years several times invalidated state laws in opinions which primarily discuss the Federal Constitution, yet are immune from review because of additional, brief statements that a similar state constitutional provision has been violated as well. [fn omitted] And the California Supreme Court's non-reviewable statements about federal law have repeatedly had considerable impact on other courts. See, e.g., Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584, 487 P.2d 1241 (1971) .... [...] But a statement from Justice Clark's dissent in Williams v. Georgia, 349 U.S. 375, 399 (1955), usefully summarizes the typical avenues of [US] Supreme Court inquiry: 'A purported state ground is not independent and adequate in two instances. First, where the circumstances give rise to an inference that the state court is guilty of an evasion - an interpretation of state law with the specific intent to deprive a litigant of a federal right. Second, where the state law, honestly applied though it may be, and even dictated by the precedents, throws such obstacles in the way of enforcement of federal rights that it must be struck down as unreasonably interfering with the vindication of such rights.'" from Individual Rights in Constitutional Law, Cases and Materials, Third Edition, by Gerald Gunther, pp. 64-68.<BR/><BR/>The recent California Supreme Court decision rests squarely on the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, and not on the U.S. Constitution, and is, IMHO, immune from US Supreme Court review and reversal because the California decision stands on the California Constitution and not on the Federal Constitution.<BR/><BR/>And I'm a lawyer, so you have to believe me. [just kidding about that "so you have to believe me" part]Mark In Irvinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01614659771194841374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-49620036575494015842008-06-20T09:40:00.000-07:002008-06-20T09:40:00.000-07:00To Richard's point, just because you say that marr...To Richard's point, just because you say that marriage is a right doesn't actually make it so. Saying it over and over doesn't make it anymore so. Our rights are clearly spelled out in the Constitution and there is no right to marry, just like there is no right to free health care, or a clean environment, or a good job, a home, clothes, or any number of things liberals want to make into rights. It isn't there and nothing you say will make it suddenly appear in the Constitution.<BR/><BR/>The SC may in fact have made a couple of kooky rulings in which they created rights that weren't necessarily actually there, but that doesn't mean they are anymore rights.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-15666790389468781312008-06-20T07:36:00.000-07:002008-06-20T07:36:00.000-07:00First of all, stop now, you know you enjoy the deb...First of all, stop now, you know you enjoy the debate so please stop pretending that you don't want to post anymore. You are going to help get the comments to triple digits and more.<BR/><BR/>Now, to the substance of your point. Tradition is very important here since you want gays in on this tradition. You seem to be saying that the traditional form of marriage is wrong, but at the same time, gays should have every "right" to it. No, that is wrong. If marriage was done wrongly from the beginning, then gays shouldn't want any part of it. What they want to do is re define an institution that has been narrowly defined for a specific purpose for several millenia. That's what's wrong.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, it isn't merely tradition that made marriage one man and woman. This was done for a specific and intended purpose. Marriage defined the proper family unit, one mother, one father, and children. By opening gays up to marriage, it also opens the family unit to being defined any which way. That is what you consistently overlook and dismiss as though it is irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant, it is central to the institution that you want gays to have access to. What you want is for the purpose of marriage to be changed. That is an idea rather full of hubris. <BR/><BR/>Marriage is primarily about families not merely couples. Gays aren't families but couples. That's why the definition shouldn't be changed. It's because you would be redefining the proper and best family unit, one mother, one father and children.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-49635884689618605962008-06-20T07:17:00.000-07:002008-06-20T07:17:00.000-07:00I wasn't planning on posting again, but your last ...I wasn't planning on posting again, but your last comment begs response.<BR/><BR/>"Throughout its history it has always been one man and one woman. Now, those that want to change it around call it a right and yet disregard the tradition it was created under, one man and one woman. Thus, while you call it a right, you also disregard that this so called right has always been defined narrowly, one man and one woman."<BR/><BR/>I can't speak on the history of marriage, so I won't try. All I can say is tradition is not a good reason to continue to deny anyone rights. The same argument could be made of many things, including women voting rights, or of slavery.<BR/><BR/>"Marriage is not about professing your love."<BR/><BR/>Since when? By this logic, a lot of straight couples have got the purpose of marriage wrong too.<BR/><BR/>"Gay couples can't raise children, at least not their own, because that relationship can't have children."<BR/><BR/>Gay couples can raise children, and have done so for thousands of years. Such relationships often provide stable, loving homes for children who would otherwise have none. Whether those children were born biologically to the couple or not is irrelevant. <BR/><BR/>"Yet, proponents dismiss this as irrelevant, (as I just did) even as they demand a right of an institution that hadn't included them since its inception."<BR/><BR/>Again, you make the case of tradition being worthy reason to continue to exclude people from rights bestowed upon other members of their country. Again, we can find many traditions which we no longer adhere to because of discrimination.<BR/><BR/>"Second, gay couples can have the same rights as married ones through civil unions, and in fact, civil unions should give any partnership the same rights." <BR/><BR/>It just isn't the same. In the very recent past, I would legally have not been able to marry my boyfriend because he is white, and I'm black. But we should settle for a civil union because we get the same rights? This just comes down to fairness. Why should we be denied marriage when same race couples are not? Why should two women who love each other, and can raise children be denied the satisfaction of being legally married? <BR/><BR/>This entire debate on just comes down to bigotry motivated by religion. And as we've made great strides in moving beyond similar bigotry in the case of women's rights, civil rights, and others. I know our country will move beyond this.JustDivinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16392490291741554385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-16564389704362769902008-06-20T06:11:00.000-07:002008-06-20T06:11:00.000-07:00I uploaded a post debunking the claims that mike m...I uploaded a post debunking the claims that mike made supposedly restricting this to a non-public policy argument yesterday, but it mysteriously disappeared... :)<BR/><BR/>My later post about marriage being a right was basically just to refute your repeated suggestions that it is not. It is. The debate is not whether someone has the constitutional right to marry, because everybody does. If the issue is now WHO that right can be exercised to marry, that is a different story. But in the other thread, and this one, you repeatedly suggest that there is no right. I was merely pointing out that is not true. And I think people have fleshed out the cases enough, I can do so more if somebody would like that to be the case.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00550531212240587496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-44341753584569830802008-06-20T03:50:00.000-07:002008-06-20T03:50:00.000-07:00They may not be powerless however in this case, it...They may not be powerless however in this case, it is the opinion of myself and many like me, that all the did was make law. <BR/><BR/>What they did was create a right to gay marriage out of whole cloth. Furthermore, it is not their prerogative to do anything. It is rather their duty to interpret the Constitution. They are NOT elected and they serve as long as they want. Once they start doing thing based on their "prerorgative" rather than what they were selected to do, then they usurp power not granted to them.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-68599021857714175312008-06-19T22:25:00.000-07:002008-06-19T22:25:00.000-07:00I meant to say: "... and the California Supreme Co...I meant to say: "... and the California Supreme Court decided that it violated the California Constitution. I don't believe that the US Supreme Court CAN [not "cannot"] revisit the California court's decision, because it is the California Supreme Court's prerogative to say what the law of California is."<BR/><BR/>As to "What the Cali SC did is overrule the will of the people and four unelected judges created law that overruled the overwhelming will of the people":<BR/><BR/>Actually it was 5 Supreme Court Justices (all Republican, by the way) and they reviewed a California initiative provision in light of what the California Constitution says. <BR/><BR/>Surely you don't contend that the California Supreme Court would be powerless to act to invalidate a statute (or initiative measure) reinstating slavery simply because it was "the overwhelming will of the people", do you?<BR/><BR/>In the decision of the Calif. Supreme Court on same-sex marriage, the Court interpreted the California Constitution. Under the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to overrule the California Supreme Court decision interpreting the California Constitution.Mark In Irvinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01614659771194841374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-11958797222200452432008-06-19T18:07:00.000-07:002008-06-19T18:07:00.000-07:00Absolutely not, Mark, the California SC, as any co...Absolutely not, Mark, the California SC, as any court, has the role to interpret law not to make it. What the Cali SC did is overrule the will of the people and four unelected judges created law that overruled the overwhelming will of the people.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-59526145982819626242008-06-19T18:03:00.000-07:002008-06-19T18:03:00.000-07:00"... the people of CA overwhelmingly passed a law ..."... the people of CA overwhelmingly passed a law specifically defining marriage as between one man and one woman"<BR/><BR/>... and the California Supreme Court decided that it violated the California Constitution. I don't believe that the US Supreme Court cannot revisit the California court's decision, because it is the California Supreme Court's prerogative to say what the law of California is.Mark In Irvinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01614659771194841374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-67099039054565521082008-06-19T17:37:00.000-07:002008-06-19T17:37:00.000-07:00It is a stretch to call marriage a civil right. It...It is a stretch to call marriage a civil right. It is even more of a stretch to call gay marriage a civil right. Furthermore, if it is a civil right, then, I assume that you are for the civil right of polygamists to get married, swingers, and transvestites. Because if this is an issue of civil rights, it must be a civil right for all relationships. <BR/><BR/>In my opinion, all people are created equally however not all relationships are equal. One man and one woman is the best structure for a stable family unit. Marriage's primary role is to define the best family unit. As such, the only relationship that should be defined by marriage is one man and one woman.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-64381849206136605332008-06-19T17:08:00.000-07:002008-06-19T17:08:00.000-07:00Mark in Irvine's post concerning Loving v. Virgini...Mark in Irvine's post concerning Loving v. Virginia states "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." - Why is it "fundamental to our ... survival" except that it (as Mike Volpe has pointed out) has the primary function of child-rearing.<BR/>Any person in the US (other than those who are legally incompetent) has the right to marry - there is no denial of access issue - they just must abide within the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman: this is why the CA court's decision is so idiotic - the people of CA overwhelmingly passed a law specifically defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Marriage within that definition is not denied to any competent adult, therefore it is not inequal treatment to deny same-sex marriage.<BR/><BR/>As to Intelligent Design - ID does not deny practical evolution - it merely suggests that observed evolution is, in fact, guided rather than explicitly and totally random. This seems to me to be in keeping with Einstein, who said "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-25149949340186038132008-06-19T17:00:00.000-07:002008-06-19T17:00:00.000-07:00Everyone thinks they know what "god" wants. A diff...Everyone thinks they know what "god" wants. A different book, a different god with different desires. The truth is, we read what we want to read. We can make any holy book say whatever we want it to say. <BR/>Thus, we must not control the lives of others and deny civil rights based on our own interpretations of centuries old books. The fact is simple and consitutional that all people are created equal and should be treated as such in the eyes of the law. Remember how the slave owners used the bible "slaves obey your masters" making the very same type of argument for slavery as this opionion piece makes against gay marriage.<BR/>It's ok to believe being gay is a sin. It's not ok to deny equal rights based upon what another sees as mythology.<BR/>One of our forefathers made a comment to the effect of one persons rights extend until he touches his neighbors nose. As a gay male, I would tell people to believe what they want, but to keep their fingers off my nose. <BR/>If one TRULY wants to "protect the institution of marriage" as the rhetoric goes, he would advocate adding state amendments to ban and criminalize adultery and divorce. think about it. for many it's a form of disguised bigotry. <BR/>if they're right, then i'm going to hell. shouldn't that be punishment enough in your eyes? <BR/>Luckily I don't subscribe to those sorts of beliefs. Good day all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-64195624208635481352008-06-19T15:48:00.000-07:002008-06-19T15:48:00.000-07:00Let me take the last anonymous post as that was wr...Let me take the last anonymous post as that was written before I published mine but approved after. <BR/><BR/>Let's start with a fact we can all agree on, marriage is a long standing institution with deep and rich history. Throughout its history it has always been one man and one woman. Now, those that want to change it around call it a right and yet disregard the tradition it was created under, one man and one woman. Thus, while you call it a right, you also disregard that this so called right has always been defined narrowly, one man and one woman. Furthermore, gay marriage proponents disregard or dismiss that this structure may have had a purpose that has validity. It does and that is to define the proper family unit. Marriage is not about professing your love. It is about raising children. Gay couples can't raise children, at least not their own, because that relationship can't have children. Yet, proponents dismiss this as irrelevant, even as they demand a right of an institution that hadn't included them since its inception. <BR/><BR/>Second, gay couples can have the same rights as married ones through civil unions, and in fact, civil unions should give any partnership the same rights. On the other hand, marriage should be protected and exclusive to a one woman and one man relationship because that is the relationship most conducive to rearing children.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-46476695338998386092008-06-19T15:36:00.000-07:002008-06-19T15:36:00.000-07:00Tolerance is NOT irrelevant because it is the poin...Tolerance is NOT irrelevant because it is the point of my piece. The point of my piece is the naked hypocrisy that some treat these issues simultaneously. That said, let me address your points because they are good ones.<BR/><BR/>If you think that marriage is always good, homosexual and heterosexual, then how about swinger marriage, and polygamist marriage, and also marriage for transvestites. If marriage strengthens society no matter the combination then are you also in favor of all these other marriages?<BR/><BR/>I am of the opinion that marriage strengthens society precisely because it combines one man, one woman and children which is the stable family unit.<BR/><BR/>As for teaching creationism, it isn't necessarily religious as all religions believe it. There is no such a thing as a separation of church and state. What it is is the Congress not advocating one religion over another. Teaching creationism doesn't do that because you aren't advocating religion. By your standards, we couldn't have Christmas lights up either. I am of the opinion that in school students, when in doubt, you reach for more exposure not less. <BR/><BR/>Frankly, teaching creationism is only part of my problem. The main part of my problem is those that duplicitously call for more tolerance towards gays vis a vis gay marriage and treat those that believe in God as kooks.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-37161989357454641892008-06-19T15:34:00.000-07:002008-06-19T15:34:00.000-07:00"There is absolutely no right for all people to ma..."There is absolutely no right for all people to marry. That is pure nonsense. Marriage is not and never has been a right. For instance, you need to get a license to get married. Is driving a right as well?" <BR/><BR/>This statement actually does have some validity to it. Driving is not a right, you have to pass the criteria to become a licensed driver. Same with marriage, you have to pass the criteria for entering into marriage. What's at issue is that some would like to place limits on that criteria regarding the gender of the two people. Not that long ago, one of the criteria for being a registered voter was that you had to be a "free white man". You might say "that's different, women and blacks did not choose to be women or blacks..." Let me assure you, forming a loving, committed connection with another human being is not a choice either. <BR/><BR/>This is not about the act of sex. This is about who you love, who you want to spend your life with. Yes, that does involve romantic attraction , but it's not what this is about. Excluding couples from federal and state benefits because they happen to be the same gender is discrimination. Whether it's based on religious belief or personal bias, it's discrimination. Religion has been used over the years to justify the unjustifiable, including slave ownership and even genocide. No one is suggesting that someone should force churches to perform weddings between two men or two women...we just want to be able to protect our loved ones in case we die...to not have to file mountains of expensive legal papers just to express our wishes, only to have them easily challenged by less than supportive relatives. My partner will have to pay an inheritance tax on this house and anything I leave her, and will most likely have to sell the home we built just to pay them. A married couple faces no such hardship because of the tax rights bestowed by their marriage. <BR/><BR/>Marriage is a privilege, and I deserve to marry the person I love. Everyone deserves that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-76256672855560796332008-06-19T15:20:00.000-07:002008-06-19T15:20:00.000-07:00The issue of "tolerance" aside, as it is irrelevan...The issue of "tolerance" aside, as it is irrelevant:<BR/><BR/>I support gay marriage because I think the government shouldn't be in the business of denying consenting adults a marriage license. Marriage is good for the economy and for societal stability whether its hetero or homosexual.<BR/><BR/>I don't support the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in school because it is a question of Faith and Faith is under the sphere of the Church and the Church and State (for both their sakes) should remain separate.<BR/><BR/>I think people should believe what they want to believe but only learn what is rooted in science (which has nothing to do with Faith; evolution is scientifically very sound)<BR/><BR/>It would behoove the religious to incorporate evolution into their theory of creation, then teach their kids that and let them learn the mechanics of evolution (which is all it is, really) at school.<BR/><BR/>Separation of Church and State is the issue here, not tolerance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com