California referendums are an example of why the Founding Fathers specifically created the U.S. as a constitutionally limited republic and NOT a democracy. Those “unalienable rights” were to be placed beyond the reach of government AND the electorate. (THAT is “original intent”; are you listening, Supreme Court?) Otherwise we end up with the moral equivalent of three people on a desert island, two of whom vote to kill and eat the third.
California has taken away Second Amendment rights, which are SPECIFICALLY enumerated in the US Constitution, why should other rights, not spelled out be any different?
You can’t just create rights out of thin air and then scream that they are being taken away. They were and are seeking to redefine an ancient institution to mean what it has never meant before and the majority of people are against that(including Obama) and rightly so.
ah yes. the “tyranny of the majority”
in canada, before trudeau (pierre, not gary) wrote up a constitution, it seemed like things were legal unless specifically outlawed. now, it seems things are illegal unless specifically permitted by law. i prefer the old way, as it seemed much more like “you have the rights to do whatever you want to do - up until it infringes my rights to do what i want to do” which i’ve always thought of as the essence of freedom
As a former Vermonter, I was against Civil Unions until I read that law, which had been carefully argued in the legislature. Civil Unions not only include benefits but also resposibilities - my heterosexual marriage includes “in sickness or in health”, which makes us rather than the state (and other taxpayers) primarily responsible for each other’s health care. Civil Unions define marriage as between a man and a woman; but now Vermont is pursuing politically-popular same-sex marriage;
I believe that religious marriage should remain a church matter. Vermont is already embroiled in an (adopted) child custody case. In Ohio, a referendom overrode the legislature by prohibiting civil unions as well as same-sex marriage. The Constitution says Art. IV Sect.1) says “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” Our Founders were unbelievably prescient, and the same-sex argument is just beginning to heat up as a national issue. Write your US legislator - don’t leave it up to the courts to ‘make laws’.
Insofar as “majority rules”: This is a republic, not a democracy - democracies don’t require judiciaries. 101 always beats 100 at a town meeting.
State recognized Marriage is not a right. Civil unions are. And every adult in California can be part of a civil union. In my mind marriage is religious. And the government should not be able to state that a Church must marry two indivuals that their beliefs stated should not be married. On the other side the government should also not be able to tell the church that they can’t marry two people together. Prop. 8 does not stop that. It just changes the legal term attached to it. I admit I don’t know but what are the legal differences between a civil union and a “marraige”?
CA established the initiative process back in the early 20th century because the rail barons owned our legislature. It was the one way to get any fairness into the system. Now we have a state constitution that is over 150 pages long. The special interests the petition process was meant to circumvent now run the show, paying signature gatherers to get their pet issues onto the ballot and they are passed by people who fail to read anything that’s put in front of them. And Nomad, if you are allowed to discriminate against my love life via initiative, permit me to get an initiative together to forbid people who use the incest analogy from owning computers. It’ll be legal, and I won’t have to put up with your hatred on the Internet anymore.
1.Speaking of “people who fail to read anything that’s put in front of them” I NEVER mentioned incest. But I guess your own hatred caused you to read something into my posting that isn’t there.
2.Just because I oppose your politics doesn’t mean that I hate you. In the future try to be less judgmental.
3.So sad that you can’t support MY freedom of speech.
nomad2112: “Why should we let a small percentage of sexually neurotic megalomaniacs completely redefine our culture?”
Nomad: if that’s how you feel, this sexually neurotic megalomaniac is certain you can find other great features here you can read. No need to read one written by One of Them.
It isn’t. But knowing your distaste for people like me, I would encourage you to not hold it against the entire site. There are plenty of features up here written by good upstanding normal people, and there’s no need to feel obligated to risk having your culture redefined by reading one written by someone of a class you despise.
Re ; openminded, why would you even bring religiosity into this? Doesn’t sound very “openminded” to me.
Re: pabsungenis, My “distaste” for “people like you” is a presumption on your part. Nor do I hold your work “against” this entire site since I have enjoyed your work thus far and likely will continue to do so in the future - sans SOME of your political leanings. Our culture will be redefined for better or worse as time goes on. I do not consider you to be in a separate class unless you are speaking economically and I don’t “despise” anyone for having created a better life for themselves in that regard. I only used the term “megalomaniacs” because I feel that describes the personalities of this small group of individuals who expect 300 million citizens of this country to bow to their wills. I’m sorry if this is in opposition to your personal views. I know this is an emotional issue but that doesn’t change the facts as I see them.
Wow. I had no idea that by simply allowing someone else to be happy and live their life the way that they choose was causing me to “bow to their will.” I guess the way my alternate pagan religion is already protected by the Constitution is by the same logic making all who don’t practice my faith (but must allow me to do so) also bow to my will? Wow. What power.
Fortunately, for you all, my faith requires that I only worry about one person in this world as far as keeping tabs on what they are doing day in, day out. That person would be myself. I’ll mind my own business about my own business if you’ll kindly do the same for your own business.
Gay marriage issues are not going to destroy anyone’s life unless they allow it to. My heterosexual marriage has not been affected one whit by anything that a homosexual has ever done, unless you count the drag queen that hit on my husband that one time… ; )
Blessings on you all, no matter your path or your views.
nomad2112: you call it “bowing to their wills.” I call it “protecting my human rights.” That is why we will never, and can never, agree. For you it’s a question of politics or theology. For me, and people like me, it’s a question of life and death.
Would you really be so gung-ho about the will of the majority if the majority was to ban Christians from being married?
pabsungenis. you imagine to be so far apart but I don’t believe it. If we were I would not enjoy your work as much as I do (call it a shared sense of humor).
Personally I can’t see that “marriage” is a basic human right. If you want to see human rights denied I suggest that you live in Kenya, or Myanmar for a year. If you did, you would then truly know hopelessness; the feelings of rage and indignation just never quite subside.
To make such a wild statement that the Gay Marriage issue is a “question of life and death” is merely inflammatory and only provokes without substance.
Comparing Christians or any other religion or heritage to homosexuality is not supportable by any current data. In fact since religiosity is a “choice” it actually works against your argument / cause.
I spite of your opinion of me I do wish you well. You have a great mind IMO.
should the government be allowed to force a religion to marry two individuals that they don’t believe should be married. I agree the government should not force them not to. The government should not be involved at all. Unfortunely gay-rights activist chose to bring the government into the picture (by bring it into the court system) and so recoginzed the government athorithy on the issue. When the citzens of the state of California decide that they were not happy with the courts ruling they vote and changed the constitution. Now that the judical ruling does not favor gay rights those same ativists want to reject the governments authority. I vote No on Prop. 8 because I believe that the government should have no say what so ever on who I chose to marry. It can recoginze my civil union to that person but marriage to me is a religious event and not a government one. As long my faith recongizes it it does not matter what the state says. But I have not researched the issue very in depth so once again I would like to know the legal difference between a “civil union” and a “marriage.”
As you should know, marriage comes with a lot of privileges granted by law (things like shared health and tax benefits and possession of property in case one of the partners dies). Not allowing certain groups access to this institution is discriminatory. You either believe that all people are created equal, as the American Constitution states, or you do not.
Your basic premise, as stated in your first post, that being homosexual is a life choice, not a genetic predisposition, is highly disputed. In fact, most of what I have read on the subject does NOT support your premise. (Just because something has been posted online doesn’t make it so.-) However, even if it were true, it would not mean that people should be denied their rights because of a life choice that they have made. Would you deny people the right to marry because they were Boston Bruins fans?
Finally, equating gay sex and/or marriage (which involves consenting adults) to pedophilia (which does not) is obviously inflammatory. If you make such statements, you shouldn’t be surprised if people react with anger.
Re: Ira Nayman, Yes, I should apologize for the pedophilia comment I made earlier. It was a short sighted response to an earlier post about “Two people love each other….end of story.” Love is not the issue. In fact, many people across the globe marry every day without the luxury of love. Arranged marriages, marriages of convenience, coerced matrimony are some examples.
That said, if homosexuality is a life choice, how is that different than pedophilia as “a life choice”? I don’t ask this lightly because with teens becoming active earlier and earlier how do we define consenting adults? Is a 25 year old involved with a 13 year old to become acceptable? Sorry but, I find your logic fuzzy.
Homosexuality (or sexuality of any flavor for that matter) is a political issue only because of the lingering effects of religion on politics left over from the days before the Founding Fathers discovered the concept of separation of Church and State. (This is why we still have laws against prostitution, pornography, etc.)
The Government’s role in marriage should involve only specifically legal matters such as inheritance and protection of minors. I favor the method of some countries in which the newly-weds rush from the church to the city hall to register their marriage. Just make the religious part optional and there you have a civil union law with the same LEGAL standing as any religious marriage.
And if you can find a church that will marry gays and that makes you feel better, then fine. Try the Episcopalians. (BTW, in my childhood I once saw an Episcopalian church put on a black-face minstrel show. My, how times change.)
On the other hand, it is possible to defend gay rights without defending homosexuality, and I reject the political Left’s politically correct attempts to require everyone to approve of homosexuality. That said, details are for another time.
way to go , Pab. Thanks for wading in.
I never fail to be surprised that there are STILL people who believe that a person would CHOOSE to be in a minority that is
shunned
discriminated against
looked down on
laughed at
IT’S NOT A CHOICE !!!
A GAY PERSON CAN NO MORE CHANGE HIS DESIRES THAN A STRAIGHT PERSON CAN CHANGE HIS.
WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
why do people worry about what other people believe in? it seems if eveyone minded their own business and worried about themselves it would be a better place, but you judgemental christians are not acting very christ like and shows your hatred for people who have the same rights as everyone else
3hourtour Premium Member over 15 years ago
and california used to be a pro-gressive state…
pschearer Premium Member over 15 years ago
California referendums are an example of why the Founding Fathers specifically created the U.S. as a constitutionally limited republic and NOT a democracy. Those “unalienable rights” were to be placed beyond the reach of government AND the electorate. (THAT is “original intent”; are you listening, Supreme Court?) Otherwise we end up with the moral equivalent of three people on a desert island, two of whom vote to kill and eat the third.
highpower223 over 15 years ago
California has taken away Second Amendment rights, which are SPECIFICALLY enumerated in the US Constitution, why should other rights, not spelled out be any different?
timtribbett over 15 years ago
You can’t just create rights out of thin air and then scream that they are being taken away. They were and are seeking to redefine an ancient institution to mean what it has never meant before and the majority of people are against that(including Obama) and rightly so.
ChiehHsia over 15 years ago
Hear, hear! Doctortoon gets it!
4Stringer over 15 years ago
Never understood the objection to the CA proposal (no pun intended). Two people love each other….end of story.
Ph00ey over 15 years ago
Ah yes…California, the land of fruits and nuts.
Yukoneric over 15 years ago
What happened to “majority rules”??????
yyyguy over 15 years ago
ah yes. the “tyranny of the majority” in canada, before trudeau (pierre, not gary) wrote up a constitution, it seemed like things were legal unless specifically outlawed. now, it seems things are illegal unless specifically permitted by law. i prefer the old way, as it seemed much more like “you have the rights to do whatever you want to do - up until it infringes my rights to do what i want to do” which i’ve always thought of as the essence of freedom
tedlogdon over 15 years ago
It’s a question of the Separation of Church and State.
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/71100/
A church has a right to perform marriages, or not, as fits with their theology.
The State has the right to recognize said marriages, but does NOT have the right to regulate them.
mivins over 15 years ago
Go get’ em, Your Majesty!
fogey over 15 years ago
As a former Vermonter, I was against Civil Unions until I read that law, which had been carefully argued in the legislature. Civil Unions not only include benefits but also resposibilities - my heterosexual marriage includes “in sickness or in health”, which makes us rather than the state (and other taxpayers) primarily responsible for each other’s health care. Civil Unions define marriage as between a man and a woman; but now Vermont is pursuing politically-popular same-sex marriage; I believe that religious marriage should remain a church matter. Vermont is already embroiled in an (adopted) child custody case. In Ohio, a referendom overrode the legislature by prohibiting civil unions as well as same-sex marriage. The Constitution says Art. IV Sect.1) says “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” Our Founders were unbelievably prescient, and the same-sex argument is just beginning to heat up as a national issue. Write your US legislator - don’t leave it up to the courts to ‘make laws’.
Insofar as “majority rules”: This is a republic, not a democracy - democracies don’t require judiciaries. 101 always beats 100 at a town meeting.
Nighthawks Premium Member over 15 years ago
so, who’s the gov in Californina?,,,,, as we said…..
Zulu81 over 15 years ago
State recognized Marriage is not a right. Civil unions are. And every adult in California can be part of a civil union. In my mind marriage is religious. And the government should not be able to state that a Church must marry two indivuals that their beliefs stated should not be married. On the other side the government should also not be able to tell the church that they can’t marry two people together. Prop. 8 does not stop that. It just changes the legal term attached to it. I admit I don’t know but what are the legal differences between a civil union and a “marraige”?
nomad2112 over 15 years ago
Google “no gay gene” then ask yourself “Why should we let a small percentage of sexually neurotic megalomaniacs completely redefine our culture?”.
No one is “created” gay.
If your 50 year old neighbor “loves” your 10 year old daughter that is still wrong.
Your “unalienable right” to bed whomever you want is your business. Please keep it out of our schools and public policies.
derylykt over 15 years ago
Maybe new legislation should only be 140 characters from now on. Then there would be a chance of a retweet campaign.
BlueRaven over 15 years ago
CA established the initiative process back in the early 20th century because the rail barons owned our legislature. It was the one way to get any fairness into the system. Now we have a state constitution that is over 150 pages long. The special interests the petition process was meant to circumvent now run the show, paying signature gatherers to get their pet issues onto the ballot and they are passed by people who fail to read anything that’s put in front of them. And Nomad, if you are allowed to discriminate against my love life via initiative, permit me to get an initiative together to forbid people who use the incest analogy from owning computers. It’ll be legal, and I won’t have to put up with your hatred on the Internet anymore.
nomad2112 over 15 years ago
Re: BlueRaven
1.Speaking of “people who fail to read anything that’s put in front of them” I NEVER mentioned incest. But I guess your own hatred caused you to read something into my posting that isn’t there.
2.Just because I oppose your politics doesn’t mean that I hate you. In the future try to be less judgmental.
3.So sad that you can’t support MY freedom of speech.
Pab Sungenis creator over 15 years ago
nomad2112: “Why should we let a small percentage of sexually neurotic megalomaniacs completely redefine our culture?”
Nomad: if that’s how you feel, this sexually neurotic megalomaniac is certain you can find other great features here you can read. No need to read one written by One of Them.
nomad2112 over 15 years ago
Re: pabsungenis
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that this was a private web site.
Pab Sungenis creator over 15 years ago
It isn’t. But knowing your distaste for people like me, I would encourage you to not hold it against the entire site. There are plenty of features up here written by good upstanding normal people, and there’s no need to feel obligated to risk having your culture redefined by reading one written by someone of a class you despise.
nomad2112 over 15 years ago
Re ; openminded, why would you even bring religiosity into this? Doesn’t sound very “openminded” to me.
Re: pabsungenis, My “distaste” for “people like you” is a presumption on your part. Nor do I hold your work “against” this entire site since I have enjoyed your work thus far and likely will continue to do so in the future - sans SOME of your political leanings. Our culture will be redefined for better or worse as time goes on. I do not consider you to be in a separate class unless you are speaking economically and I don’t “despise” anyone for having created a better life for themselves in that regard. I only used the term “megalomaniacs” because I feel that describes the personalities of this small group of individuals who expect 300 million citizens of this country to bow to their wills. I’m sorry if this is in opposition to your personal views. I know this is an emotional issue but that doesn’t change the facts as I see them.
ironflange over 15 years ago
Well put, Pab. Too bad for some that “Mallard Fillmore” isn’t on this site.
Ravynne over 15 years ago
Wow. I had no idea that by simply allowing someone else to be happy and live their life the way that they choose was causing me to “bow to their will.” I guess the way my alternate pagan religion is already protected by the Constitution is by the same logic making all who don’t practice my faith (but must allow me to do so) also bow to my will? Wow. What power.
Fortunately, for you all, my faith requires that I only worry about one person in this world as far as keeping tabs on what they are doing day in, day out. That person would be myself. I’ll mind my own business about my own business if you’ll kindly do the same for your own business.
Gay marriage issues are not going to destroy anyone’s life unless they allow it to. My heterosexual marriage has not been affected one whit by anything that a homosexual has ever done, unless you count the drag queen that hit on my husband that one time… ; )
Blessings on you all, no matter your path or your views.
Pab Sungenis creator over 15 years ago
nomad2112: you call it “bowing to their wills.” I call it “protecting my human rights.” That is why we will never, and can never, agree. For you it’s a question of politics or theology. For me, and people like me, it’s a question of life and death.
Would you really be so gung-ho about the will of the majority if the majority was to ban Christians from being married?
nomad2112 over 15 years ago
pabsungenis. you imagine to be so far apart but I don’t believe it. If we were I would not enjoy your work as much as I do (call it a shared sense of humor).
Personally I can’t see that “marriage” is a basic human right. If you want to see human rights denied I suggest that you live in Kenya, or Myanmar for a year. If you did, you would then truly know hopelessness; the feelings of rage and indignation just never quite subside.
To make such a wild statement that the Gay Marriage issue is a “question of life and death” is merely inflammatory and only provokes without substance.
Comparing Christians or any other religion or heritage to homosexuality is not supportable by any current data. In fact since religiosity is a “choice” it actually works against your argument / cause.
I spite of your opinion of me I do wish you well. You have a great mind IMO.
Zulu81 over 15 years ago
should the government be allowed to force a religion to marry two individuals that they don’t believe should be married. I agree the government should not force them not to. The government should not be involved at all. Unfortunely gay-rights activist chose to bring the government into the picture (by bring it into the court system) and so recoginzed the government athorithy on the issue. When the citzens of the state of California decide that they were not happy with the courts ruling they vote and changed the constitution. Now that the judical ruling does not favor gay rights those same ativists want to reject the governments authority. I vote No on Prop. 8 because I believe that the government should have no say what so ever on who I chose to marry. It can recoginze my civil union to that person but marriage to me is a religious event and not a government one. As long my faith recongizes it it does not matter what the state says. But I have not researched the issue very in depth so once again I would like to know the legal difference between a “civil union” and a “marriage.”
aardvarkseyes over 15 years ago
Nomad,
As you should know, marriage comes with a lot of privileges granted by law (things like shared health and tax benefits and possession of property in case one of the partners dies). Not allowing certain groups access to this institution is discriminatory. You either believe that all people are created equal, as the American Constitution states, or you do not.
Your basic premise, as stated in your first post, that being homosexual is a life choice, not a genetic predisposition, is highly disputed. In fact, most of what I have read on the subject does NOT support your premise. (Just because something has been posted online doesn’t make it so.-) However, even if it were true, it would not mean that people should be denied their rights because of a life choice that they have made. Would you deny people the right to marry because they were Boston Bruins fans?
Finally, equating gay sex and/or marriage (which involves consenting adults) to pedophilia (which does not) is obviously inflammatory. If you make such statements, you shouldn’t be surprised if people react with anger.
nomad2112 over 15 years ago
Re: Ira Nayman, Yes, I should apologize for the pedophilia comment I made earlier. It was a short sighted response to an earlier post about “Two people love each other….end of story.” Love is not the issue. In fact, many people across the globe marry every day without the luxury of love. Arranged marriages, marriages of convenience, coerced matrimony are some examples.
That said, if homosexuality is a life choice, how is that different than pedophilia as “a life choice”? I don’t ask this lightly because with teens becoming active earlier and earlier how do we define consenting adults? Is a 25 year old involved with a 13 year old to become acceptable? Sorry but, I find your logic fuzzy.
pschearer Premium Member over 15 years ago
Homosexuality (or sexuality of any flavor for that matter) is a political issue only because of the lingering effects of religion on politics left over from the days before the Founding Fathers discovered the concept of separation of Church and State. (This is why we still have laws against prostitution, pornography, etc.)
The Government’s role in marriage should involve only specifically legal matters such as inheritance and protection of minors. I favor the method of some countries in which the newly-weds rush from the church to the city hall to register their marriage. Just make the religious part optional and there you have a civil union law with the same LEGAL standing as any religious marriage.
And if you can find a church that will marry gays and that makes you feel better, then fine. Try the Episcopalians. (BTW, in my childhood I once saw an Episcopalian church put on a black-face minstrel show. My, how times change.)
On the other hand, it is possible to defend gay rights without defending homosexuality, and I reject the political Left’s politically correct attempts to require everyone to approve of homosexuality. That said, details are for another time.
Nighthawks Premium Member over 15 years ago
way to go , Pab. Thanks for wading in. I never fail to be surprised that there are STILL people who believe that a person would CHOOSE to be in a minority that is shunned discriminated against looked down on laughed at IT’S NOT A CHOICE !!! A GAY PERSON CAN NO MORE CHANGE HIS DESIRES THAN A STRAIGHT PERSON CAN CHANGE HIS. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
tedlogdon over 15 years ago
Nomad2112:
Remember your 13th birthday?
You were in the shower, getting ready for school, when you remembered, “I turn 13 today! I have to decided whether to like boys or girls!”
You don”t remember that because it didn’t happen. It doesn’t happen to anyone that way. Sexual preferrence is not a choice.
mike48 over 15 years ago
why do people worry about what other people believe in? it seems if eveyone minded their own business and worried about themselves it would be a better place, but you judgemental christians are not acting very christ like and shows your hatred for people who have the same rights as everyone else