So you’re withdrawing your earlier contention that the fact that Supremes haven’t ruled yet means it isn’t an issue?
[/quote]
Because “marriage” is a word that means “the union of a man and a woman.”
[/quote]
“Cite?” is just a totally inadequate response to that statement. You simply rephrase your position without elucidating it one little bit. Surely you can do better - you could at least give a dictionary.com cite; even december would do that.
Once again, WHY? I’ve asked you several times already what’s wrong with calling gays’ marriages what they are, and you clearly don’t have a substantive answer. There are powerful implications to that. Time to take the next step, isn’t it? That would be the step that recognizes that a different word for some than others is *inherently * discriminatory - which brings me back to asking you, again, in what way you disagree with the MA SJC ruling to that effect that I’ve already provided you.
Left, I haven’t said a friggin’ word about comity, nor is that at the heart of the issue at hand anyway. If by that last reply you think you’ve addressed anything I’ve said, you are as mistaken as you are puerile. Now do you want to actually discuss the matter at hand, or simply spray graffiti on the Board wall, laugh, and run?
Well yes, I guess you would. I can’t find the argument you’re referring to in any of the recent posts, so how the hell is Bricker gonna find it? It’s also about ten to one against Bricker here. He can’t respond to everyone. Stuff gets missed.
I assume you only want an answer to the adoption thing since the first part shold be clear now. I have no idea what Bricker would say about this, but it looks to me that on the face of it, Max’s argument is flawed in it’s characterization of Bricker’s stance.
Under a Bricker civil union, you can call yourself whatever you want to call yourself; married, sliced bread, life partners, two peas in a pod. It makes no difference. How you and your Church (if you have one) decide to define your relationship is up to you. The government won’t care.
It works just the same way now in the example Max shows. You can be the legal guardian of a child you have not adopted. As far as the government is concerned you are the “guardian” and the child is your word. The government doesn’t care one way or the other if you call the kid “Son” and he calls you “Dad.” Or whether you or anybody calls you “parent” or “child.”
Hmm… you have no real feelings of your own, no conscience except to follow what the lawful order (in this case, Democracy) tells you to do. Based upon this, if I were to assign you a Dungeons and Dragons alignment you would be Lawful Neutral.
I, on the other hand, consider myself Lawful Good. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are Lawful Evil. The mayor of San Francisco and all others who engaged in civil disobedience are Chaotic Good.
Well, I might disagree, Blalron, but the point that I’d make is that he, and the other Dopers-at-Law, took an oath when they were admitted to the Bar to preserve and defend the Law. Singular. Not “the laws” meaning statutes, but the abstract concept of achieving justice through the application of commonly held custom and policy given effect through constitutions, statutes, ordinances, executive orders, regulations, and, oh yes, case law. I can accept that he, and Dewey and a few others, have a philosophy of constitutional interpretation which differs from mine, and that would not justify pitting him. But it is singularly disingenuous for someone to go through law school and then mouth the ridiculous platitudes about “judges making law” and “judicial activism.” From Shodan or Brutus I can accept that – but Brickerknows better. And that’s what I’m offended by – not that his views differ from mine, but that he’s decided to throw away the meaningful substance of the institution that earns him a living in order to mouth demagogic sound bites.
Wanna know why there was no revolution in December 2000 in the U.S., as there most certainly would be in many other countries if the results of an election were as hotly argued as they are here? Because this country has respect for the rule of law? Wanna know why? Because the law, and the courts, have been the defenders of rights, and that fact has been driven home to even the dullest high school student. Wanna know how to change that? Start playing games where the letter of the law is held up to higher repute than the spirit behind it, and what most laymen put down as “legal technicalities” are held up as the finest part of the art. Like Rick has been doing.
I’m not angry that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman, and to decide otherwise is to change a time-honored definition. I think he’s wrong about that, but it’s an opinion he’s entitled to hold. As a layman with a high respect for the law, however, I think that he’s knowingly and willfully undermining the core institution that’s kept America a stable nation, for the sake of his personal feelings about marriage. And that deserves Pitting with all the invective one can possibly sling.
I have been an advocate for full inclusion in all of societies institutions for gay people since I have been politically aware (some 20 odd years give or take). Not that I expect you to avidly follow my every post, but poke around the boards a bit and you will see that this is nothing new for me.
One other thing that I think is worth mentioning: Just because you decide to label someone hysterical does not make it true. This is something that I have seen you do time and again. Endlessly repeat the same false assertion as if it were true. Many of us are on to you.
This is not to say that emotions are not running high for some folks, they are. There are also as many if more people that are being reasoned and making good points. I guess it is all what you are looking for.
My guess is that the folks that are claiming that they would be won over, if only we weren’t so emotional never had any intention of being supportive or helping the cause. They are simply looking for an excuse for things to continue the way they are.
Possibly not. I think, however, that someone labels another a Nazi, bigot, etc., when they are in essential agreement, it is a pretty good indication that they are less than coolly rational.
The assertion isn’t false.
And, in at least some cases, advocates of judicially-imposed SSM don’t really want to prevail in the court of public opinion. They would rather not win a majority over. They would rather scream insults.
That might be one of the reasons they want SSM imposed by judicial fiat. They would rather have their grievance.
:shrugs
As I said, and as Left Hand of Dorkness’ more vivid chess example shows, you may have to choose between getting what you claim you want, or the sense of injured innocence you seem to relish.
Shodan, No one has stated that every single poster in this debate is being rational. Indeed, given the sheer hostility that gay people face every day, and the way that they are being excluded at a State level from equality in an institutionalized way I am amazed that any gay person is rational at all.
It is for us to understand irrationality when we encounter it. Not for us to demand that they calm down.
My point is that the high emotions of a few posts seem to be all that you are willing or able to focus on. That is fishy as hell.
I am going to ask you point blank. Where do you stand on this issue?
