Fuck You, Prop 8 Supporters! Also: Fuck You, Dishonest News Media

[VinylTurnip]

@Uncle_Jocko

Hey, wait a minute, let’s not get all carried away here! You really want to take away my Constitutional right to force people into gay marriages? That’s just … un-American!

You can try, but some screaming liberal judicial activist will just come along and overturn your forced-gay-marriage amendment. And oh, the wails we’ll hear from conservatives…

[Der_Trihs]

@FriarTed

My point tho is that with the spread of gay marriage, we’re going to see a lot more “gay rights vs. religious rights” conflicts & I’m afraid that the latter may take a beating.

And exactly what “religious rights” are you afraid will take a beating?

[running_coach]

@FriarTed

My point tho is that with the spread of gay marriage, we’re going to see a lot more “gay rights vs. religious rights” conflicts & I’m afraid that the latter may take a beating.

You can practice your beliefs all you want without interference. Don’t force those viewpoints on others who don’t believe as you do.

[flodnak]

The only actual religious right I can think of that could take a beating if same-sex marriage is permitted is the right of religious groups to refuse to marry gay or lesbian couples. In which case I think I might point out that same-sex marriage has been legal in a number of countries for some time, and this problem has been solved pretty neatly. The government must issue a marriage license to each couple who qualifies (not already married, etc), but each church or other religious organization can decide whether the couple meets their requirements. A lesbian couple has the right to marry, but not to marry in their local Catholic church, for instance. You might say, each person decides who they want to marry, and each religious organization decides who they want to marry.

I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it works.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Der_Trihs

@FriarTed

My point tho is that with the spread of gay marriage, we’re going to see a lot more “gay rights vs. religious rights” conflicts & I’m afraid that the latter may take a beating.

And exactly what “religious rights” are you afraid will take a beating?

The right to discriminate against gay people, it looks like.

[Shodan]

@Polycarp

In all seriousness, Shodan, does anyone besides you advocate that this is precisely what the Ninth Amendment means?

I know there’s a school of thought that believes the Ninth Amendment was included to ensure that the enumerated rights would not be taken to mean that states could not guarantee other rights in thier own sovereign judgment. But that peculiar constriction put on the Ninth and Tenth together is something I’ve never seen from anyone but yourself.

This is not snark, by the way – I’m genuinely willing to learn that you know of learned writers I’m not familiar with who do advocate this view. That’s why I’m asking.

James Madison wrote the Ninth Amendment. To put it as simply as possible, he agrees with me. The Wiki article is pretty good.

Earl Warren and Willliam Brennan both concurred with Justice Goldberg that the Ninth “is not a source of substantive rights”. William O. Douglas wrote

The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@Revenant_Threshold

[ So far at least as the limited government argument works, isn’t a simpler system with less ability for the government to control preferable?

The simpler system with less government control is the one where the states or the people decide if they want gay marriage or not. The system with more government control is the one where un-elected judges overturn the expressed will of the people and force gay marriage on the voters against their will.

Regards,
Shodan

[ElvisL1ves]

@Shodan

Marriage is a public act. The idea is to force the government to recognize same-sex marriages.

No, it is not, and you would serve yourself tremendously better by dropping what even you know to be a falsehood. The idea is to force the government to observe equal protection and due process, rights, guaranteed under the Constitution you love to cherry-pick. Get it? It isn’t about any particular law, it’s about applying it equally to “all persons”, as the text says.

Now cut the crap - it only makes you look ignorant on top of hateful.

If you are favor of limited government, and the people tell the government “Don’t do this” and the government goes ahead and does it anyway, then you no longer have limited government.

That’s what the constitutional amendment process exists for. As you might have learned if you had paid attention in civics class. As the Prop 8 supporters somehow figured out long ago, too, except that they didn’t target the governing constitution.

Disdain,
ElvisL1ves

@pravnik

By the way, I feel a bit bad you felt you had to include the IANAL part.

I think he left out a comma in that.

@FriarTed

I’m pretty much resigned that gay marriage is going to happen on a widespread, if not
national level. My idea pragmatic preference is that ‘marriage’ be a religious &/or private ceremonial rite while the government only authorized civil unions/domestic partnerships.

That’s what we have NOW. :rolleyes: Or are you of the “I wish those icky people would call it something else even if it’s the same thing so I don’t have to feel like their equal” shit again?

A church owns a piece of property that it rents out for various functions, not always religious. When it refuses to rent it out for a gay wedding, the church is sued for discrimination… successfully. (Had indeed happened).

Some Christians open a photography business. They turn down a request to rent their services for a gay wedding. They are sued for discrimination… successfully. (Also has happened).

That’s what happens when you run a public accommodation, like that or like a Woolworth’s lunch counter, for that matter.

Religious schools, radio/TV stations, bookstores, any sort of businesses or institutions which are religious in nature but not actual churches are going to be more liable for discrimation suits for either not hiring gays at all or not offering spousal insurance benefits to them.

And the problem with that is … ?

The widespread legalization of gay marriage will inevitable be reflected in public education- sex ed, social studies, even down to elementary school storybooks. When
gay marriage is public policy, then Daddy’s Roommate and Heather Has Two Mommies will just be par for the course.

And they might even see mixed-race couples in their books too! Oh noes, how can we explain that to their tender, trusting little selves?

Then, the long-threatened religious conservative pull-out from public schools may just happen, along with their time, effort & finances.

Been under way ever since desegregation, friend. Who else of them is left to find a way to continue to institutionalize hatred?

And that is how gay marriage may just impose on people who oppose it.

Then it’s high time they recognized the world has moved forward, and the calendars already say we’re in the 21st century. Why should haters get sympathy from anybody? *Especially *the ones who rationalize it as God’s will? :dubious:

[GIGObuster]

@Shodan

The simpler system with less government control is the one where the states or the people decide if they want gay marriage or not. The system with more government control is the one where un-elected judges overturn the expressed will of the people and force gay marriage on the voters against their will.

Regards,
Shodan

The best reply to this stupid line of thinking comes from News Hounds

Hey Neil [Cavuto], back in 1967 there were 15 states in which the will of the people was that interracial marriage should be prohibited. Thanks to that pesky “anchor baby” 14th Amendment, that way of thinking was consigned to the scrap heap of history. What say you about that, Mr. Cavuto?

The system is not that simple because it takes into account the rights of minorities. People who want to make it simpler are indeed un-American.

[Polycarp]

@Shodan

@Polycarp

In all seriousness, Shodan, does anyone besides you advocate that this is precisely what the Ninth Amendment means?

I know there’s a school of thought that believes the Ninth Amendment was included to ensure that the enumerated rights would not be taken to mean that states could not guarantee other rights in thier own sovereign judgment. But that peculiar constriction put on the Ninth and Tenth together is something I’ve never seen from anyone but yourself.

This is not snark, by the way – I’m genuinely willing to learn that you know of learned writers I’m not familiar with who do advocate this view. That’s why I’m asking.

James Madison wrote the Ninth Amendment. To put it as simply as possible, he agrees with me. The Wiki article is pretty good.

Earl Warren and Willliam Brennan both concurred with Justice Goldberg that the Ninth “is not a source of substantive rights”. William O. Douglas wrote

The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights

Regards,
Shodan

should have known better than to ask.

[ExTank]

Thanks for the wiki link on the 9th.

I was moved by the relevant passage from Griswold v. Connecticut cited in the article you linked to:

The Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights… I do not mean to imply that the … Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government…While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement.

That last sentence really nails it, I think.

"And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement."

[Yookeroo]

@FriarTed

And that is how gay marriage may just impose on people who oppose it.

Let me get out my violin.

@FriarTed

My point tho is that with the spread of gay marriage, we’re going to see a lot more “gay rights vs. religious rights” conflicts & I’m afraid that the latter may take a beating.

Good.

[magellan01]

@cwthree

:rolleyes: How, exactly, is gay marriage “imposed” on anyone? Who’s going to be forced to enter into a gay marriage against their will? Or is this all about those poor, poor folks who will have to endure the crushing burden of knowing that someone, somewhere, is doing something that makes the Baby Jesus cry?

Oh please. Try not to be ridiculous. It’s not being forced on anyone so that they have to participate in an SSM marriage. It’s forcing them to live in a society where man+man = man+woman. It’s as if a court decided that men have the right to walk around without pants and masturbating. No one would be forced to participate in the activity that the new law allows, but they’d be forced to live in a society that allowed it. When something is allowed to be imposed on us as a society, the shorthand is that it is being imposed on us individually.

Could you really not figure this out for yourself?

[Indistinguishable]

Yup. I agree; you are being slowly forced to live in a society which considers hardcore man-on-man marriage on par with traditional heterosexual marriage. Sucks to be someone who doesn’t want that to happen, but the world’s mores keep on changing all the same.

[magellan01]

@Indistinguishable

Yup. I agree; you are being slowly forced to live in a society which considers hardcore man-on-man marriage on par with traditional heterosexual marriage. Sucks to be someone who doesn’t want that to happen, but the world keeps on changing all the same.

Possibly. But not yet. I’m hopeful for SCOTUS.

[Indistinguishable]

The SCOTUS may delay things legally for a while right now, but surely you’re aware of the large generational disparity in attitudes on this subject. Do you seriously think the youth of today are going to keep standing in gay marriage’s way when they’re the ones in charge?

The battle that actually matters isn’t the legal one; it’s the cultural one. How do people feel about gay marriage? And among the kids, your side is losing badly.

[magellan01]

@Indistinguishable

The SCOTUS may delay things legally for a while right now, but surely you’re aware of the large generational disparity in attitudes on this subject. Do you seriously think the youth of today are going to keep standing in gay marriage’s way when they’re the ones in charge?

The battle that actually matters isn’t the legal one; it’s the cultural one. How do people feel about gay marriage? And among the kids, your side is losing badly.

I think that if things weren’t pushed to this point at this point in time, that SSM would have had a better chance of becoming accepted than where we are right now. Sooner or later it was going to get to SCOTUS, and as someone who does not think SSM is a good idea (I support equal rights for gays, but not SSM), the sooner the better.

BY the way, it will also help the Reps in November. Lots of silver lining here, in my opinion.

[Indistinguishable]

@magellan01

I think that if things weren’t pushed to this point at this point in time, that SSM would have had a better chance of becoming accepted than where we are right now.

What do you mean by this?

I know you support equal rights for gays but not same-sex marriage. For the most part, young people today do not agree with you. The inertia of the legal situation notwithstanding, you already are being forced to live in a society where most young people (and many older people) consider same-sex marriage A-OK; no question about it, in a couple decades you will have to put up with this having become the mainstream view.

[magellan01]

@Indistinguishable

@magellan01

I think that if things weren’t pushed to this point at this point in time, that SSM would have had a better chance of becoming accepted than where we are right now.

What do you mean by this?

I know you support equal rights for gays but not same-sex marriage. For the most part, young people today do not agree with you. The inertia of the legal situation notwithstanding, you already are being forced to live in a society where most young people (and many older people) consider same-sex marriage A-OK; no question about it, in a couple decades you will have to put up with this having become the mainstream view.

I basically agree with your estimation. My quibble would be that I think you’re conflating gays having rights with SSM. I think the acceptance of the former is much greater than the latter. BUt the main point is that if things had been allowed to slowly move in that direction, the likelihood of SSM being accepted by society at large was greater than it is now that SCOTUS will intervene. Th metamorphosis gets stopped and 9 people in robes will decide it with one ruling.

[ElvisL1ves]

Ah, the old “Sure they should have equal rights someday, but as a society we’re just not ready yet” line from a generation or two ago makes its return …