McKay -

Did anyone in significant numbers in ancient Greece call for the abolition of slavery?  No.  Did anyone (in any numbers) then argue that women should be allowed to hold property?  No.  Or that women should have been allowed to participate in the Greeks’ “pure democracy?”  No.

Over a thousand years later, when our Founding Fathers crafted our democracy they too chose not to
change those hallowed institutions.  We didn’t free slaves for another 80 years.  We didn’t as a nation grant women the franchise for over a 100 years after the Constitution was written.  And we didn’t start talking seriously as a nation about racial equality re: civil rights until just 50 or 60 years ago.  Did that make segregation a practice worth preserving - just because it had “always been so?”  That it was “traditional?  How far back in time do you want to go to find a system of laws and mores that make you feel comfortable in your own skin?

So there…there is your response to your very silly argument from a supporter of equal rights to civil unions.

And please, note well: If you and your church refuse to recognize civil unions or marriages conferred by the state, I support your right and your church’s right to do so.  100%.  For all I care you can marry a goat if it makes your pastor or priest happy.

Robert Charron -

If schools are teaching children that homosexuality exists, and that it is as much the product of nature/nurture as is heterosexuality, they are not “preaching normalcy.”  They are observing fact.  It is YOU and your ilk who assess one condition as “normal” and the other as “abnormal.”

Is homosexuality a “choice?”  If so, why is it that roughly the same percentage of lower primates exhibit homosexual tendencies and behaviors as do human beings?  Do chimps choose to be “queer?”  And if human beings “choose” to be homosexual, tell us - at what moment in your life did you “choose” to have your penis react to the sight of a naked woman rather than a naked man.  Do you stills struggle with that choice to this day?

If “one man/one woman” marriage is so fundamental to the human existence, so normal, such a bedrock institution, explain to us all how the existence of homosexual marriages or unions, or equal access to any civil rights by homosexuals so endangers marriages of men and women?  Actually, it seems to me that the institution is pretty damned fragile already all on its own, given that roughly half end in divorce or separation.

I’m a man who’s been happily married to a woman for over 18 years, and there’s no number of same sex unions which will have a scintilla’s effect on my marriage.

So what’s your real problem?

Why don’t y9ou just be honest and admit is - you just don’t like fags, do you?  Or you fear them.  Or maybe…just maybe…you fear you’re one of them.

I feel very sorry for you and the fear and hatred that consumes your life.

Hollywood Russ wrote:

“MJV is an full blown idiot. There! I said it . . . not only is Bob Charron a dolt, so is McKay V. Jones . . . So there, M versus J!”

[MVJ]: You couldn’t have made my earlier point about the behavior and demeanor of supporters of same-sex marriage any better. And this isn’t lost on normal, everyday people watching these types of exchanges from the sidelines. Who claims that the other side is intellectually bankrupt and of less than average intelligence, yet predictably are always the ones to resort to juvenile name-calling? Which side likes to use (overuse, even) epithets such as “hate” or “bigotry,” yet comes across as w-a-y more hate-filled than the ostensible “haters” who oppose gay marriage?

“Many societies, including medieval Europe, experimented with all kinds of marriages.”

[MVJ]: No they didn’t. Your example of a polyamourous “swinger” lifestyle by some Byzantine nobility couples doesn’t denote “marriage” any more than the existence of bestiality historically denotes that people regarded this as “cross-species marriage.”

“And your arguments wither under the bright light of scrutiny.” 

[MVJ]: Why the name-calling and juvenile insults, then? If our arguments are so hopelessly inadequate . . .

“There are places all over the Earth where men can live with men as ‘man and wife’ and women can do the same.”

[MVJ]: Sure, but they have never regarded their extra-marital homosexual relationships as identical to “marriage,” except for in very recent times (and then, only by some. My gay friends and relatives are not agitating for “gay marriage” at all). Agenda-driven revisionist histories, like the ones you refer to, are pretty blatantly stretching things in an effort to show a groundswell of historical clamor for gay marriage.

“Another thing, outsiders DID influence the outcome of Proposition 8.”

[MVJ]: Without a doubt. No one, including me, has argued that non-Californians didn’t “influence the outcome of Proposition 8.”

“The Mormon Church which is based in UTAH spent millions”

No, the Mormon Church very carefully encouraged its individual members to donate millions, so that the donations were from individual members, not the Church itself. Instead of a megalithic church spending millions, which some people have been at great pains to portray, it was individual Americans exercising their 1st Amendment right to free speech. What I found interesting during the campaign and in the aftermath was how absolutely stunned and flat-footed gay marriage proponents were. They thought it was in the bag, and their disgraceful behavior in reaction and in the aftermath show their frustration.

“on misleading tv ads that distorted the facts and just plain lied.”

Oh, come on. *EVERYBODY* thinks that the ads from the “other side” “distort the facts” or “just plain lie,” while their side’s ads, of course, are the embodiment of Truth™ itself. This is true of any issue and any candidate, not just this particular issue. The fact is that the Pro-8 coalition (which the Mormon Church, though influential, was but a minority player) ran positive ads, while the Anti-8 coalition’s ads were negative and attacking. People looked in vain for all of the hate and bigotry they had been led to expect in the Pro-8 ads and among the Pro-8 supporters, while Anti-8 ran that horrificly ill-advised ad on the day before the election portraying Mormon missionaries terrorizing a lesbian couple, rifling through their underwear drawer (very weird, any way you look at it), confiscating their wedding rings, ripping up their marriage certificate, etc. I know one woman personally who was set to vote “no” on 8, and changed her vote on the morning of directly because of this ad.

Nobody is teaching shit about gays in your classrooms, fools. What teacher,
during this time of budget cuts, would have the balls to stand in front of an
Eighth grade Health class and tell the kids, “Homosexuality is normal.” What
they might say is that psychiatrists used to classify it as a mental disorder, but
they no longer do so. They haven’t in decades. As to MVJ, his reasoned
argument, “Nobody’s ever accepted gay marriage before,” isn’t reasoning.
Nobody landed on the moon until Neil Armstrong did it in 1969! Just because
it’s never been done, that doesn’t make it a bad thing. MVJ, did or didn’t the
mormon church (from UTAH) pour millions (as did the Scientologists) into hate
mongering ads that misconstrued the issue. Nobody is trying to recruit gays.
Who would volunteer to be viewed as a pariah and the worst name you can get
called on the playground is “gay.” Nobody chooses to be gay. It’s not a lifestyle
choice. It’s a genetic predisposition, just like the color of one’s skin. Look in the
mirror MVJ, do you like what you see? I doubt it. There’s an old saying, “Those
who spot it, got it.” Why is your hatred of gays so vociferous?

If you sit down and think about it, there is no reason to deny a right to the
majority, but refuse a minority the same right. Since Stonewall, the less than
monolithic LGBT (got some more letters you wanna toss in, pal?) community
has gone through a lot of changes. That homosexuals (a term invented during
the Victorian era) want to embrace family values, marry and raise children
should make those who value the institution of marriage happy.

BTW - There have been cases of experimental marriages in Rome and in
Byzantium. For instance, Emperor Michael III and his wife drank a cup of
“friendship” with a fellow named Basil and his wife (who was the Emperor’s
mistress) in Haga Sophia with the blessings of the Patriarch. The four entered
into a lasting bond in which they swore to love and protect one another.

I offer you this link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marc.htm

The book by John Boswell, “Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe”, Villard,
New York, NY, (1994) available from Amazon is particularly erudite and from
whence I pulled my example of experimental marriage. As an epilogue to the
story, Basil became Michael III’s heir. A few short years later, Michael, known as
The Sot, died after a particularly brutal drinking spell, and Basil the First
founded the most remarkable dynasty to rule the Byzantine Empire. This
dynasty he founded, the Macedonian (Greek: ?????????? ?????????), ruled
over what is regarded as Byzantium’s most glorious and prosperous era.
Remarkable story about an LGBT who rose to the top, dontcha think?

Hollywood Russ writes:

“And so much for any ‘reasoned argument’ against gay
marriage.”

MVJ: Supporters of gay marriage without fail refuse to acknowledge or deal with the reasoned arguments opponents give. They caricature opposition as bigotry and knee-jerk religious ignorance. Judge Walker’s opinion gave the appearance of thoroughness and exhaustiveness, but he also refused to deal with the better-reasoned arguments against what he wrote.

HR: “If you take the time to read Judge Walkers opinion, he dismantled every possible argument against the bigotry . . .”

MVJ: No he didn’t. See above and in my first post. He cited evidence and experts friendly to his views and agenda, but didn’t engage the “best” arguments and evidence of the “other side.” It’s easy to appear able to “dismantle” something when you compare your best argument to someone else’s weakest and ignore their best.

As I said in my first post, Judge Walker correctly outlined the fundamental issue here: is gay marriage a fundamental right or a new right? While supporters of gay marriage continue to insist that traditional standards of marriage are passe no longer relevant, they are unable to demonstrate that anybody at any time other than our recent past and present has considered homosexual relationships to be “marriage.” Marriage has only been conceived of and defined as a male/female institution, even among other homosexuals in history (they didn’t consider their relationship to be marriage).

While Judge Walker correctly framed the issue, he refused or failed to support his assertion that gay marriage isn’t a “new” right as opposed to a “fundamental” right. Which is why I believe this is heading for a 5-4 Supreme Court decision upholding Prop 8 (with the 9th Circuit upholding Judge Walker’s decision—- I don’t think anyone expects the 9th Circuit to uphold Prop 8).

HR: “I’m sick of outsiders (Mormon Church, et al) shelling out millions to attack gay couples”

MVJ: Gotta love the demagoguery. Having an opposing viewpoint and legally exercising 1st Ammendment rights is “attacking?” The other funny thing about this canard is that even if every single Mormon in California who voted had not voted, Prop 8 still would have passed. The LGBT block, while habitually resorting to cries of “hate” and “bigotry” at the drop of a hat, does not hesitate to act in the same manner they complain of towards another minority group maligned by many. They concentrated their frustration on the Mormons (not even a minority group within the Pro-8 block), but their behavior and attitudes towards Mormons during the campaign and in the aftermath was disgraceful. Honestly, if you’re trying to change hearts and minds and get people over to your way of thinking, continued attempts to marginalize Mormons on the part of LGBT is *not* how to go about doing it. Do LGBT honestly think they’re winning anyone over by acting like this?

In order to prevail at the California Supreme Court, the supporters of Prop 8
will have to do one or both of two things: either they will have to cite law or
show a compelling interest of the state.  In citing laws, they must be grounded
in constitutional principles or court precedents.  But those who argued before
Judge Walker presented none.  Nor did they present any coherent evidence that
the state or its citizens would be negatively affected by same sex marriage. 
    An appeals court, at any level, is legally bound to consider only the
arguments presented at the lower court.  Inasmuch as no arguments based on
either law or compelling state interest were presented to Judge Walker, it is
highly unlikely that either the California Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme
Court could find any legal basis to overturn Judge Walker’s ruling.  I suspect
that even the conservative Catholic majority on the U.S. Supreme Court would
be reluctant to ignore that salient fact.  They are smart enough to know that to
allow religious ideology to trump the Constitution would be opening a
Pandora’s Box of state-by-state laws based on local preferences - a legalized
form of mob rule.  Southern states, for instance, would be free to pass laws
restricting civil rights, so long as they conformed to local majority preferences.
  If either court were to ignore their legally mandated responsibility and vote to
overturn Judge Walker’s decision, it would have to do so based primarily on the
personal, religious beliefs of the majority of judges on the panel.  And were
that to take place, it would be a victory for those who believe a Christian god
rules America, not the Constitution - the first step to an Iranian style theocracy. 
Is that what most Americans REALLY want?

Now some of us have well reasoned arguments for being against homosexual marriage. The thing is I can remember when the homosexual community accused the straight community that they were enforcing their morality on the homosexual community. Now our children are being taught in our schools that homosexuality is normal, who now is imposing their morality on whom? But of course the answer is that homosexuality is deemed to be praiseworthy and under the secular religion embraced as the only true religion, anyone who does not embrace this view of homosexuality is immoral. Look at the words used to describe opponents of homosexual marriage. We are bigots, filled with hate, xenophonic, homophobic and otherwise undesirable types who deserve utter condemnation, period. We are guilty of hating, and that is deemed to be our motivation. Well it beats having to defend your position rationally, I must admit. But the tactics you use differ little from those used by Rush Limbaugh against those he disagrees with. Bob charron, Raleigh, NC

Supporters of gay marriage have never adequately responded to the fact that nobody at any time in history has pressed for gay marriage other than in the last decade or so. This is true even of cultures with tacitly or openly accepted homosexuality (e.g., ancient Greece, etc.), where homosexual relationships were never regarded as “marriage” and those engaging in them had “traditional” marriages that were seen as such by society. Judge Walker recognized in his ruling that the case hinges on whether gay marriage is a “fundamental” or a “new” right: “The parties do not dispute that the right to marry is fundamental.  The question presented here is whether plaintiffs seek to exercise the fundamental right to marry; or, because they are couples of the same sex, whether they seek recognition of a new right” (pp. 110-111). 

The problem is that he then deliberately and completely ignored all evidence and precedents that traditional man/woman marriage has been the “fundamental” definition of marriage throughout history and cultures, and that gay marriage would be a “new” definition, even for cultures that countenance homosexuality. That’s what “marriage” means, even among people who engage in and countenance homosexuality. It is only in the last decade or so that people have pressed for their relationship to be seen by society as of equal standing as traditional marriage.

Supporters of Prop 8 are complaining that judges don’t have the right to
invalidate the will of the voters.  Well, yes they do, if the will of the voters violates
the Constitution.  Back in the 1960’s California voters passed initiatives that
allowed people selling real estate to refuse to sell property BECAUSE THE
PROSPECTIVE BUYER WAS BLACK!  About this same time, they passed Proposition
15, which made cable TV illegal.  More recently, they passed Proposition 187,
which, in effect, would have declared illegal aliens to be not “under the
jurisdiction” of the United States.  All were declared invalid because they clearly
violated both the letter and intent of the Constitution.  In each case, the initiatives
failed on appeal because their supporters had no legal arguments to present -
only their religious and racist ideologies.  If Prop 8 were to be upheld on appeal,
we might as well tear up the Constitution and admit that we are a (Mormon)
theocracy.  I don’t think that will happen.

If marriage exists only for procreation, then we should pass a law which dissolves childless marriages after a reasonable period…say, 18 to 20 months.  If the only acceptable family structure for raising children is one man married to one woman, then we should also pass a law which requires that children of divorced parents be given to other married heterosexual couples, or we should pass a law which prohibits married parents from divorcing and require them to continue cohabitation even though they can’t stand each other. 

If the “traditional” family structure is worth defending, then we first have to identify it.  Is it the current structure in which married parents typically both work one or more jobs?  Is it the model of a generation ago when married mother did not work?  Or perhaps two generations ago when husbands went off to war and the mother worked in a factory to produce munitions, or in a mill to produce uniforms for their spouses?  Or maybe we should adopt the model of 100 years ago or so when children typically did not finish high school but rather were themselves put to work in factories to help support their “traditional family?”  Or maybe go back even further to a time when the family unit operated around an agrarian society…children worked in the fields, remained in the family home even after marriage awaiting inheritance of the family farm upon the death of the father?

All these changes occurred in just a few hundred years.  The notion of a “traditional” American family model is simply fantasy and flies in the face of historical and societal facts.

For my part I would prefer to see governmental units conferring ONLY the contract of civil unions to partners of either sex who desire it.  This is necessary to ensure that all partnerships have equal access to equal rights regardless of sex.  leave “marriage” and the definition thereof to religious institutions.  If they choose to require that the partners be of the same sex, let them.  It’s their right to do so, and I support that.  But the civil rights that are attendant to the recognition by a civil authority of a civil union - that’s none of their goddamned business.