Politically correct: same-sex marriage

The Kansan has never printed an article questioning homosexual marriage. Perhaps some "affirmative action" is in place?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by dissenter on November 17, 2009 at 12:11 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Or perhaps no one has ever submitted an article questioning homosexual marriage which is the answer to your question. No affirmative action is in place here, just no one questioning homosexual marriage seems compelled to send anything in. The UDK isn't partisan.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by elbee on November 17, 2009 at 10:23 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

"is in place" didn't mean "is currently happening". It meant "should happen". The UDK ought to try and represent a more diverse pallet of views.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by dissenter on November 17, 2009 at 10:36 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Mr. Compton offers no reason why gay marriage should stay illegal other than "President Barack Obama ...believes marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman....and has also said that he is not in favor of same sex marriage."

This is dodging around the question and makes me wonder if Chet has a valid reason not to support homosexual marriage. Before this page becomes awash in Bible quotes from Glenjamin, let me just say that the Bible is not an appropriate document off of which to base American law.

I would like to see someone post a legitimate, secular reason why allowing homosexuals to marry would be a problem. I was interested to see what Chet would have to say on this issue, but he dodged the question and instead appealed to the authority of the person he has criticized in every column he has written up to this point.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on November 17, 2009 at 2:11 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

I would like to see an article from Compton critiquing homosexual marriage, but I wouldn't be surprised if he avoids it. It's an unpopular position, and the homosexual establishment has shown it is willing to take revenge on those who confront them.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by dissenter on November 17, 2009 at 2:18 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

I think the main problem is that social conservatives don't have any backing for their point of view other than extra-constitutional and extra-legal religious references in this case. This is a way to get laughed out of the arena around here. I am yet to hear a coherent argument against gay marriage on any grounds that is not based in a religious context.

You are right, though, the liberal people who are ardent supporters of gay marriage (and many other social issues) on this campus will not allow the opposition to express its opinion without screaming bigotry and calling for censorship. This is unfortunate because it makes them look like jackasses when they could easily be seen as more reasonable.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on November 17, 2009 at 2:33 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

I'm pretty sure I have seen "the opposition" a couple of times out "expressing its opinion". They're the ones in front of Wescoe, right?

The "no gay marriage" thing is a little weird. I don't even see any reasons here in the comments. What is it, miscegenation? Religious reasons? Reluctance to amend the law? Health concerns? Gay marriage would destabilize the economy? Articulate something, because "qui tacet consentire vidétur"

• Upvote 0
• Posted by pantheon on November 17, 2009 at 3:20 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Pantheon: Who's in front of Wescoe?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by dissenter on November 17, 2009 at 3:24 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

I don't see either side presenting its opinion very well on Wescoe Beach. I was thinking more of student groups rather than outside affiliated organizations with people from Wichita/Topeka. Fred Phelps = not coming at gay marriage from the same angle as most people most likely.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on November 17, 2009 at 3:36 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

I'm seen the opposition in front of Wescoe too. It's a man..and sometimes some of his helpers, preaching unfriendly remarks about gay people with harsh religious overtones.

As an officer for KU's Queers and Allies. We do not promote censorship. In fact, it goes against most of our beliefs to deny someone else the right to speak...even to this man who opposes our existence so strongly and so publicly. As much as I would personally like to rid him of any part of my world, he has the right to say what he wants. He has the right to rile up as many hate-producing people as he pleases.

I'm not seeking to censor people, but to hopefully change thier minds. Not silencing, but educating people is the goal.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by soto86 on November 17, 2009 at 3:43 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

For the record, at this point rolling my eyes at the sight of the words "homosexual agenda" has become a reflex. Here's a news flash, the "homosexual agenda" is to a.) be treated at least no worse then everyone around them and b.) to not be alone all the time.

You know, just like everybody else.

Everything else that's supposedly part of the "homosexual agenda" you'll always find was made up by a right winger. The fact is, if one is too limit themselves to rational reasons only- then there is no basis for banning gay marriage. If you want to go into spiritual/irrational reasons then sure, they're there. But if we can make laws based on spiritual/irrational reasons then why not declare that Unicorns and Dragons are real? Like the Bible says they are in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Job, Psalms, Isiah, Jeremiah, and Malachi?

Also, Straw Men Arguments. Please Stop Using Them.

(Chuckles at the idea that anyone seriously believes that Obama is infallible.)

• Upvote 0
• Posted by JasonForson on November 17, 2009 at 3:49 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

I always find it amusing when secularists insist that only secular reasons are legitimate or valid in a policy determination. Any opinions predicated on moral or spiritual grounds are to be dismissed as “irrational.” Right, Mr. Forson? Right, Mr. Conner?

What a nauseating assumption. It self-servingly validates the secularists’ faith (that’s right, faith) in an unimportant or non-existent God—unworthy of consideration—while requiring others to abandon their faith that God is important and worthy of honor.

That said, let me see if I can make a “legitimate” defense of marriage; marriage as it’s been known for two millennia.

First and foremost, same-sex marriage constitutes a social experiment of immense scale. It’s really never been done before and the long-term consequences are entirely unknown. But here’s what we do know. Marriage has historically been the foundation of society. Marriage between one man and one woman appears uniquely tailored to nurturing and raising healthy children. Children that are raised in an intact natural family (where children are descended from both parents) are dramatically more likely to be successful (adopted children also succeed under this standard, albeit at lower rates). In families where either a mother or father is absent, children fare worse. For a detailed accounting of these positions, reference the works of Prof. Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania Law School—she’s marshaled an impressive array of supporting sociological statistical evidence.

We also know that the institution of marriage has been dramatically weakened over the last several decades. Although I don’t want to go too far into the details, I should note that much of this decline in marriage was precipitated by previous social experiments (e.g., no-fault divorce reform), which had less-than-positive results. Divorce rates remain near record highs—but unlike same-sex marriage, we’ve been collecting societal data on this trend for more than a generation. (This is why Prof. Wax has a large enough data pool to analyze). The results: social pathologies have soared. With the decline in healthy marriages came children who failed more frequently in school, in work, and in their relationships. Not surprisingly, this development morphed into a vicious cycle.

While same-sex marriage advocates proclaim that the weakened nature of marriage only supports their position (it’s already bad, so how can you think it’ll be any worse?), I would counsel caution. There is a real potential that children will be harmed by any further weakening of the institution. As a society, our future rests with our children. Traditional marriage appears to be the best medium for developing healthy children and should thus be supported as the traditional norm.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by RTBatKU on November 17, 2009 at 6:24 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

This pretty much sums up my position on it.

http://sdgln.com/social/2009/11/04/when-it-comes-marriage-let-religious-right-have-it

• Upvote 0
• Posted by em1 on November 17, 2009 at 7:14 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

What about the propagation of the human species?

So how is homosexuality an evolutionarily sound practice or state of being in humans? I ask that you please not answer using examples of a-sexual creatures or anything of the sort. I am asking about humans only and how homosexuality is evolutionarily sound in humans alone.

If you want an argument outside of religion when it comes to discussions of homosexuality, then please answer these questions.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Dan on November 17, 2009 at 10:21 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

The phrases "homosexual establishment" and "homosexual agenda" made me crack up a bit. Yes, an "establishment" of people that have been marginalized and persecuted consistently in our society. What it comes down to, is that you're trying to use scare tactics to deny people their civil rights. Considering all of the civil and legal benefits that marriage now confers, there are only two ways forward from here that respect human rights. Either we strip those benefits from all marriages, and attach them to "civil unions" or whatever you want to call them, that are available to same-sex couples as well, or we grant marriages to same-sex couples. There is some abstract argument out there about this harming the "traditional" family structure, or child development. Answer me this. Just how would children be harmed by same-sex marriage? There's data out there on children raised by homosexual individuals or same-sex couples. Look at it, tell me if those kids were somehow messed up by that. Obviously, same-sex couples can't have children themselves, so they would either have to adopt or find a surrogate. So a same-sex couple adopting a child and dedicating their life and love to raising that child is somehow dangerous, more dangerous than that child remaining in the foster care system?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by dlowell on November 17, 2009 at 10:28 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Now of course my questions are not related to the human rights aspect of this argument what-so-ever.

I will have to agree with those who advocate the same human and civil rights for any and all marriages/civil unions.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Dan on November 17, 2009 at 10:34 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

"So how is homosexuality an evolutionarily sound practice or state of being in humans? I ask that you please not answer using examples of a-sexual creatures or anything of the sort. I am asking about humans only and how homosexuality is evolutionarily sound in humans alone."

Homosexuality is evolutionarily sound because it tells us who is a witch. Like being left-handed or born with a vestigial tail.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by pantheon on November 17, 2009 at 11 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

You could buy Discount UGG Boots and UGG Classic Cardy which are all Cheap UGG Boots.There are the latest style of 2009 UGG Boots on www.leahyugg.com Buy two pairs of UGG Boots ,you can get one pair of UGG Classic Cardy 5819 for free. You will enjoy Free Shipping and 1 week Delivery to your door! http://www.leahyugg.com /

• Upvote 0
• Posted by jeeland on November 18, 2009 at 8:21 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Thank you for asking that question, Dan:

This is just a theory, of course, but it makes sense to me why it would be a legitimate reason for homosexuality to exist in evolutionary terms:

Prehistoric, pre-agricultural man travelled in small groups of mostly related individuals. For a group in which all individuals reproduce, there are many offspring but there is a smaller amount of protection for each, amounting to a decreased likelihood of successful reproduction for the group. If I have, say, 10 men in a group, and each one has his own children, these men will all defend their own children. If there are 10 men but only 8 have children, the other 2 can act in supportive roles and essentially add to the likelihood of reproductive success for the overall group, though they do not have offspring of their own.

Modern day support for this theory exists since there is a higher probability of male homosexuality for each consecutive male born to a woman.

In other news, RTBatKU claimed me a secularist (sure am) and then claimed that morality and religion should play a role in our decisions. I agree with that sentiment, but we are talking about American law. American law is not based on any religious founding principle and religious texts are not considered valid legal documents. You can think what you want about gay marriage, but to try to justify a legal opinion with religiously based reasoning is not Constitutional.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on November 18, 2009 at 1:43 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Where in the Constitution does it say that justifying a legal opinion with religiously based reasoning is not constitutional, Mr. Conner? I’m not advocating that such decisions should be based on religious constructs, but I also would point out that it’s perfectly appropriate to view decisions through a moral lens (sure looks like the signers of the Declaration did).

“One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations.”

– Joseph Story, U.S. Congressman, “Father of American Jurisprudence,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointed by James Madison.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by RTBatKU on November 18, 2009 at 3:39 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

You can base a legal opinion on whatever reasoning you want as long as the reasoning does not originate on a faith-based premise like the will of a divine being. If there is a rational reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry found somewhere in the Bible that can stand independently of the rest of the document, have at it.

With few exceptions, the 10 Commandments are a good set of guidelines to live by, but we do not enshrine them in our legal system.

As far as the divorce rate and sanctity of marriage arguments go: as a child of divorced parents I can certainly agree that when marriages fall apart, it is very damaging to the children. We should work towards a society with better marriages and less divorce.

However, as my childhood friends with married parents will tell you, my parents' getting divorced did not affect them. Now that my homosexual brother is married, I don't see how it will affect the sanctity of my marriage when I get married or affect my marriage at all for that matter.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on November 18, 2009 at 5:29 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Um RT. . .

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

And since making laws based on religious reasoning is establishing a religion as the religion of the State, this means that justifying a legal opinion with religiously based reasoning is pretty much THE FIRST THING declared unconstitutional in the history of the United States.

Listen closely children, the founding fathers were all leaders in a period of history called The Enlightenment. In this period of history Religion was considered good for the soul, but bad for everything else. End of friggin' story.

And find it hilarious that it's never occurred to the religious that people like this are THE reason young people are leaving the church in droves. The church says don't be hypocrites and liars, and then you spend a day pretending to be celebrating the anniversary of Darwin's Theory of Evolution while passing out a book which the introduction claims was a major reason behind the Holocaust.

Do they have to work at bringing hypocrisy and deceit to such a breathtaking level, or does it come naturally to them?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by JasonForson on November 18, 2009 at 5:59 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Mr. Forson:

Although the ACLU would applaud your view of the First Amendment, the language was actually intended to foreclose the possibility that the national government would adopt an official church (like the Church of England). It also sought to prevent the federal government from prohibiting citizens to freely exercise their own religions.

How is the inclusion of moral reasoning (yes, moral reasoning may be predicated on religious beliefs) the equivalent of establishing the Church of the United States? It’s not. Instead, you would favor using the First Amendment, intended as a shield to protect religious liberty (note: jurists enjoy this liberty too), as a tool to censor religious expression.

So to counter your dismissal of the founding fathers as simply a worn-out product of their era, let me say this—

Listen closely Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and all of those who inform their conscience with faith: people like Mr. Forson seek to marginalize and intimidate you from expressing your views and values. They seek to supplant a secular, godless standard on a culture that was founded upon a reverence for the holy.

Their position is not limited to a judge rendering a ruling—the arguments they are leveraging (see previous comments) seek to displace the role your faith has in determining any public policy. If you extend their logic, the government should not allow citizens to craft a law by referendum if they based their vote on their conscience. While denominations and faiths may differ on specific issues, they also share an enormous swath of common ground. Do not be silenced by those who base their positions upon bad history and flawed reasoning.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by RTBatKU on November 19, 2009 at 10:34 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Your use of the Straw Man Argument is incredible RT. The depth you claim to know my opinion is to a depth that really is impossible without comic book style telepathy. Fortunately I think it's fairly obvious to an outside observer that this is the case.

But, to play it on the safe side, I'll put it in writing. Of course I don't want to stifle religious freedom and expression. You want to go to a church, go! You want to worship Allah instead of Jesus, I'm good with that. You want to worship the Sun, the FSM, your cat, the Aesir, the Internet, John Stamos, Neal Patrick Harris, Harry Potter, et cetera- let me go on the record to say that I DON'T CARE.

Just don't write laws from this. It's like trying to teach creationism in science classrooms. There are things that are perfectly fine when kept separate but if they are mixed both are ruined. Faith and Reason are two big ones- both are great for you if you keep them separate but mix them together and the results are nothing short of spectacularly bad. And when this country was founded, the fathers of this country declared that the laws of the country would be based on Reason. You misunderstood me, I was declaring the founding fathers irrelevant and outdated- I was praising them for their foresight.

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."

You know who said those quotes? Thomas Jefferson. Yes, THAT Thomas Jefferson.

You can be moral without being religious, something that many people seem to ignore at best and often claim is impossible. And basing law on religious reasons is EXACTLY how you "adopt an official church" as you put it.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by JasonForson on November 19, 2009 at 11:29 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

"Wasn't"

"You misunderstood me, I WASN'T declaring the founding fathers irrelevant and outdated- I was praising them for their foresight."

Missed that in my preview, that it was important enough for a correction.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by JasonForson on November 19, 2009 at 11:32 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Well said, Jason!

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on November 19, 2009 at 2:24 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Leviticus 18:22.  `You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Sin is sin whether KU condones it not. it is still sin.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Pebble on November 19, 2009 at 3:14 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Leviticus 19:18. 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.'

The Bible also condemns using God's word spread hatred and prejudice.

Exodus 21:7-8. 'And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. '

But the Bible is totally cool with selling your female children into sex slavery.

[Maybe you should use a different source in these kind of talks Pebble.]

• Upvote 0
• Posted by JasonForson on November 19, 2009 at 3:36 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Oh…THAT Thomas Jefferson…that would be the same Thomas Jefferson who said:

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are a gift from God?”

He is an impressive founding father. But a solid authority on the First Amendment?

Probably not. Jefferson was in France, not the U.S., when Congress debated and ultimately passed the First Amendment. He also financed missionary activities with federal funds and promoted legislative and military chaplains—but that’s beside the point.

You know who is an authoritative founding father on this theme? Fisher Ames, better known as the “Framer of the First Amendment.”

According to him, “Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits…it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.” Seems to me he’d be okay with religion and morals influencing people’s decisions on public policies.

Why don’t we also consider the views of some other founding fathers (you know, get a more representative sample).

Let’s look to John Adams:

“It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.”

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

What about James Wilson?

“Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and moral sense, forms an essential part of both.”

How about Noah Webster?

“The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.”

Plainly, your claims that the founding fathers declared that our laws were to be based on reason alone appear strained. While you assert that people “can be moral without being religious”—a position with which I agree—I would also defer to the greatest founder of them all, George Washington, who said:

“[L]et us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantively true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

• Upvote 0
• Posted by RTBatKU on November 19, 2009 at 4:39 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

I don't think that anyone is claiming that we should do away with religion, RTBatKU, but to justify a law we cannot rely on faith alone. There may be sound reasons against homosexual marriage to be found in the Bible or other holy books. If they are there, they should be able to stand on their own without having to appeal to the authority of a divine being as the ultimate foundation behind the reasoning.

It is fine to quote the Bible in a legal document as long as it is part of a chain of reasoning and deduction that does not ultimately rest on an article of religious faith. Furthermore, it is fine for people to support a law for whatever reasons they want. However, the bill itself cannot use divine justification.

I mentioned this earlier and you chose to respond to someone else's comment instead of mine. I hope that you will respond with whether or not you agree with this statement.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on November 19, 2009 at 4:55 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Mr. Conner:

Regarding your last post, which I found thoughtful, I would say that I agree with you to a degree. Where you say a bill cannot use divine justification, I would say a bill probably should not rely upon purely divine justification. The distinction lies in the fact that I can locate no authority (U.S. Constitution, state constitution, or other statute) disallowing divine justification for a bill.

Although you could rightly point to the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence over the last four decades as such an authority, I believe the Court's interpretation is becoming increasingly untenable as history and context are brought to light.

That the first Congress would adopt the Establishment Clause with the intent to outlaw bills that may be based on divine justification doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Remember, it was around this time that Congress allowed the United States Capitol to serve as a church building - a practice that began even before Congress moved into it and continued well after the Civil War. While it might not be ideal, a political body could (and they did) pass laws based on religious reasons. This is not to say that a polity could pass a law restricting its citizens' religious liberty, because the Constitution explicitly forbids this under the Free Exercise Clause.

The great thing about our system of government is, if laws are passed and people don't like them, they can vote the bums out of office. If people are unable to compose a majority in their region, they can always vote with their feet and move. This is not the tyranny of the majority, but rather the predictable results of majority rule, as required by a democratic form of government (subject to the limitations of the Bill of Rights). This idea may seem foreign to our generation, but I think this is precisely how the framers intended liberty to be exercised. At the end of the day though, I would agree with you that better laws rest upon broader justification.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by RTBatKU on November 19, 2009 at 6:56 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

In response-

Fisher Ames:

"The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people."

John Adams:

"Now to what higher object, to what greater Character, can any Mortal aspire, than to be possessed of all this Knowledge, well digested, and ready at Command, to assist the feeble and Friendless, to discountenance the haughty and lawless, to procure Redress of Wrongs, the Advancement of Right, to assert and maintain Liberty and Virtue, to discourage and abolish Tyranny and Vice?"

James Wilson:

"Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind."

Noah Webster:

"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look at his character."

George Washington:

"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth & reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened age & in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States."

And the often attributed

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

So yeah, I think we could keep quote mining all day but we'd won't get any further then this. We certainly have established that the Founding Fathers were Christians in their private lives, but thought it was a bad idea to base the laws of the land solely on religious doctrine.

And as it's been said before, nobody is trying to take away religion- just not use it to write law unless it's backed up by something else as well. I'm interested to hear your reply to connerm.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by JasonForson on November 19, 2009 at 7:26 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

And you replied to connerm before I got my post up. Heh.

Then I will add that the Establishment Clause was placed into the Bill of Rights with the express purpose of outlawing bills that are based on divine justification. Part of the idea being that if it was in the Bible and was a good idea for a law then they'd be able to find a justification for bringing about that idea into law based on Reason as well.

Thou Shalt Not Murder for example. In the Bible and a good idea for a law. While Establishment Clause says this could not be brought into law because "The Bible Says It" we can argue that outlawing murder protects the members of a nation from "unwarranted restrictions against personal freedom"- as being dead tends to do that. The non-religious, moral argument against murder is a strong one as well- but is unnecessary.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by JasonForson on November 19, 2009 at 7:33 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

in all honesty, perhaps someone who is homosexual, tell me what the point is of getting married to you? Aside from the legalities and insurance-related ties to marriage, it's founded on religious unity and all kinds of stuff I can't imagine homosexuals would really want any part of. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I also don't understand what the point is outside of benefiting financially from it. I feel the 'human rights' argument is overdone when marriage is so bound in religion, which is to homosexuals as abortion clinics are to right-wing Catholics--they don't exactly align. So here's a kansan first, I'm asking that someone help round this out for me.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by bobsaget on November 19, 2009 at 11:34 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

When you say "legalities", that's a pretty significant list. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30190.html

You want the non-financial specific legal rights, here:

Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.

Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."

Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.

Applying for joint foster care rights.

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.

Making burial or other final arrangements.

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.

Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.

And obviously the financial ones listed there are helpful for starting a family as well. Because regardless of how vile and hateful can be in discussing gay marriage, that's what they want to be recognized as. Now, as to your assertion that marriage is "founded on religious unity and all kinds of stuff I can't imagine homosexuals would really want any part of": there's a good possibility that they do want their union to be recognized by an authorized The God representative. At that point it's between them and the church. Here's a question for you to chew on: Why do people get married in a courthouse by a judge?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by pantheon on November 20, 2009 at 12:39 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

that is thought provoking, but I said aside from legalities

• Upvote 0
• Posted by bobsaget on November 20, 2009 at 12:12 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

RT - Stripping a minority of a positively-establish civil right through popular referendum IS tyranny of the majority. It's exactly the kind of thing Madison warned of in Federalist No. 10. That is what happened in Maine, and in California. It might be acceptable in a purely democratic government, but let us not forget that ours is a republican one, as well. It's why we have representative democracy, balance of powers, three branches, the whole bit.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by dlowell on November 20, 2009 at 12:41 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

You don't see the difference between what you asked before and what you just said, do you? I answered the question that you actually asked, then I went that extra mile to hazard a guess to the question you meant to ask, and you just went ahead and ignored the second and dismissed the first. Maybe I nestled it in there to subtly. Before I reiterate it, I want to remind you, I am not gay, this is just a guess based on my own experience with marriage: "And obviously the financial ones listed there are helpful for starting a family as well. Because regardless of how vile and hateful can be in discussing gay marriage, that's what they want to be recognized as. Now, as to your assertion that marriage is "founded on religious unity and all kinds of stuff I can't imagine homosexuals would really want any part of": there's a good possibility that they do want their union to be recognized by an authorized The God representative."

So, to belabor the point, HOMOS MAY WANT TO GET MARRIED FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS OR JUST TO BE RECOGNIZED PUBLICLY AS A FAMILY.

If you don't understand this time, I must warn you that I never tire of beating a dead horse. I'm almost certain somebody is going to misinterpret "religious reasons" in a very specific way, but I'm going to leave it as-is until they do.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by pantheon on November 20, 2009 at 12:59 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

yeah, i think it just got lost in the first answer. Thanks for the insight. And I know what you're saying. I have a gay uncle in San Fran that goes to church. It seems like an oxymoronic thing to do, but to each his own.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by bobsaget on November 20, 2009 at 11:09 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Mr. Forson:

You write "...the Establishment Clause was placed into the Bill of Rights with the express purpose of outlawing bills that are based on divine justification."

That is absolutely false.

I hope you, and everyone else reading this, will dig into the history books and discover just how wrong your statement is (many may be surprised). No evidence supports your claim. If you can show me where the drafters and/or ratifiers of the Establishment Clause expressly stated anything remotely close to your statement, I will capitulate now.

What do you think the justifications were for laws enforcing the sabbath? That’s right—divine justification. These laws existed at the time of the nation's founding and throughout American history.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by RTBatKU on November 21, 2009 at 1:57 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Mr. Lowell:

A democratic government is no different than a republican government as far as protection of minority rights is concerned. It simply does not matter if people vote individually on policy matters or have their representatives vote on them instead. This mechanism is irrelevant to the protection of minority interests—it’s just the mechanics of how policies get approved.

What is relevant to the protection of minorities is, under our form of government, the Bill of Rights (which limits what the federal government can do) and the Fourteenth Amendment (which incorporates most of the Bill of Rights, rightly or wrongly, and makes them applicable to the individual states).

Now, outside of those protections, our form of government allows for majority rule (an ideal preserved under both purely democratic and republican models). If majorities want to recognize a civil right that has never before been recognized (such as gay marriage), they are allowed to do so. No state in the union has done so. The only states that have gay marriage are ones where the judiciary has substituted its own will (really, the will of five or so justices) over that of the people.

This power grab by the judiciary in those states violates the very “balance of powers” to which you referred. The judiciary essentially steals the legislature’s policy making powers for itself, and there’s very little “check” available to correct the resultant imbalance in power. Note: when legislatures craft bad policy, they can be voted out of office; this same corrective device does not exist with justices enjoying lifetime appointments.

While you would seek to characterize the judiciary’s actions as creating a “positively-establish[ed] civil right,” I would describe it as an unconstitutional act (is the judiciary the one branch that can never act unconstitutionally?). In Maine and California, the people simply reclaimed what was taken from them and their legislature: the right to make their own policy determinations. Otherwise—if any minority group were capable of authoritatively announcing “civil rights” that everyone else must affirm and recognize—we would in every sense of the phrase be subject to the “tyranny of the minority.”

• Upvote 0
• Posted by RTBatKU on November 21, 2009 at 2:42 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

RT-

I have, multiple times, and I haven't been doing it alone. It's kind of hard to show you evidence when you go out of your way to brush off and ignore anything that is remotely evidence shaped. It's right there in black and white, the first line of the Bill of Rights explicitly outlaws the exact thing you say they don't.

Many people in this thread have shown you the evidence, multiple times in many cases including my own. Just because you ignore it doesn't mean it goes away. And frankly, I don't see the point in debating you anymore if you're just going to brush off anything that you disagree with. Often with no better justification then "Because I Said So" like you just did with your post. I mean, you didn't even have an argument in your last one at me for why you thought I was wrong, you just said I was wrong because you don't accept the slightest possibility that I could be right. In the end you tacked on something about Sabbath laws, but how many of those are left? How many of those haven't already been taken down, often by the same line of reasoning I've been using? Some counties won't let you sell beer on Sunday- but really that's about it.

So I guess my point is, we really can't call what you are doing intellectual debate- unless sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I'm not listening" when anyone shows any proof of the opposing position counts now.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by JasonForson on November 21, 2009 at 3:20 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

Mr. Forson:

Let me repeat this so that my point is clear.

You wrote "...the Establishment Clause was placed into the Bill of Rights with the express purpose of outlawing bills that are based on divine justification."

I challenged your ability to provide any evidence of this "express purpose." An express purpose would be, say, the Congress declaring: "We adopt this measure in order to..." or "This amendment is ratified with the intent to..."

Do you see my point? The "express purpose" for the Establishment Clause, which you claim to know or have evidence of, is not the same as the Establishment Clause itself. Put bluntly, Express Purpose for Establishment Clause ≠ Establishment Clause. Get it?

You have zero evidence that any such “express purpose” exists. It’s not “right there in black and white.” Contrary to your claims, you haven’t presented evidence of this express purpose “multiple times”—so I haven’t had anything to “brush off and ignore.” I clearly did have an argument in my last post, you just missed it.

It’s ironic that you accused me of not presenting an intellectual debate when you missed the entire intellectual point.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by RTBatKU on November 21, 2009 at 10:04 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Politically correct: same-sex marriage

RTBatKU

I have a simple request. Please spell out the reason that the government should still be able to tell gay people that they cannot get married. I thought that the solution was clear, either allow gay people to get married or extend many of the benefits of marriage to civil union...Seeing that this is such a huge issue I don’t understand the difficulties in making this work...gay people want to be recognized as a family, and get benefits...for what reason does the government have to deny them this? I unlike others do not like to beat a dead horse, but I truly fail to see how two men or women who choose the legally bind themselves to one another effects my life in such a detrimental way that I should not let them be happy, or how it affects me at all....

I've read all of the posts and while I’ll admit that many of the things that were brought up, I am rather unfamiliar with, as far as I can tell you have yet to give a legitimate REASON for not allowing gay marriage.

Should your reason be a religious one, I wish to say that I think that it is a very weak argument...why is it that your idea of what your deity wants from you dictate how others live their lives? I don’t go to church, why do I have to follow its beliefs? It was stated somewhere that a person doesn’t need to go to church to be moral, and this is indeed true. Morales and religion are related but not necessarily the same thing. In the bible it says thought salt not kill, we have a law that says the same thing...but that doesn’t mean that we need to copy all laws and rule from the bible...it is immoral to kill other people, and it makes sense to make it a law. What I’m saying is that there are things that are logical like not murdering people and then there are religious rules like one shouldn’t engage in homosexual activates...these should be separated...I think that some people have a hard time making this distinction.

Another note that I would want to add to this...if it's ok for religion to help dictate the laws of our country, rather have divine justification for the make-up of some laws, which divinity should we follow? Or should we follow them all? What about ideas that may conflict with one another?

All in all i'm missing the part where you spell out in plain dumbed down English your legitimate legal reasoning as to why gay people should not be married...

I’m not going to assume your answer or thoughts but I think that neither you, nor any other person of similar ideas has any other reason then ‘I think its wrong/gross/ (or my favorite) against nature.’

• Upvote 0
• Posted by thtwhtguy on November 22, 2009 at 6:53 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal