Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

[saden1]

Once you start legislating morality the war is already lost. It's simply a matter of time....like my man Thomas Jefferson said:

We are sensible of the duty and expediency of submitting our opinions to the will of the majority, and can wait with patience till they get right if they happen to be at any time wrong.

-Thomas Jefferson

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by saden1

Once you start legislating morality the war is already lost. It's simply a matter of time....like my man Thomas Jefferson said:

If you were able to present TJ with the question at hand, what is your opinion of his thoughts on the matter?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Hog1

If you were able to present TJ with the question at hand, what is your opinion of his thoughts on the matter?

Given that he is the man who authored the the Declaration of Independence I feel confidant that he would be partial to gay marriage. That is to say if he is a principled man he would side with liberty and not with religious dogma.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Given that he is the man who authored the the Declaration of Independence I feel confidant that he would be partial to gay marriage. That is to say if he is a principled man he would side with liberty and not with religious dogma.

Not sure that gay marriage was much of an issue back then so its hard to say how he would feel. Did the Declaration of Independense apply to black slaves?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Not sure that gay marriage was much of an issue back then so its hard to say how he would feel. Did the Declaration of Independense apply to black slaves?

It is not hard to deduce from his writing how he would have felt. Slaves were considered property so I would imagine it applied to them from the stand point of property by their owners.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

It is not hard to deduce from his writing how he would have felt. Slaves were considered property so I would imagine it applied to them from the stand point of property by their owners.

I'm not much of a history buff so I really cannot argue either way.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by saden1

Given that he is the man who authored the the Declaration of Independence I feel confidant that he would be partial to gay marriage. That is to say if he is a principled man he would side with liberty and not with religious dogma.

interesting to be sure

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

Once you start legislating morality the war is already lost. It's simply a matter of time....like my man Thomas Jefferson said:

Morality is really the only thing you can legislate.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Morality is really the only thing you can legislate.

Wow, I can't tell if you're serious or clowning. If you're serious that's unbecoming. The constitution is what exactly? It deals with what exactly? Statutory law deals with more than issues concerning morality.

Edit: It occurred to me you might be arguing that every issue we deal with has a moral component. In that respect you are right. My comment, however, was with respect to legislating Christian morality which is the bases for anti-gay sentiment.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

Wow, I can't tell if you're serious or clowning. If you're serious that's unbecoming. The constitution is what exactly? It deals with what exactly? Statutory law deals with more than issues concerning morality.

Edit: It occurred to me you might be arguing that every issue we deal with has a moral component. In that respect you are right. My comment, however, was with respect to legislating Christian morality which is the bases for anti-gay sentiment.

Morality is not the same thing as sexuality. When people say "You can't legislate morality" what they really mean is "You shouldn't legislate sexuality". But even that is unavoidable. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Change should be organic. The people simply aren't ready. Homosexuals should concentrate on passing laws that don't seem like such a frontal assault on traditions that have been developed over many centuries. Revolutions that don't proceed from a strong popular consensus often have dangerous results. This is the difference between the American Revolution, for instance, and the one they had in France.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Morality is not the same thing as sexuality. When people say "You can't legislate morality" what they really mean is "You shouldn't legislate sexuality". But even that is unavoidable. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Change should be organic. The people simply aren't ready. Homosexuals should concentrate on passing laws that don't seem like such a frontal assault on traditions that have been developed over many centuries. Revolutions that don't proceed from a strong popular consensus often have dangerous results. This is the difference between the American Revolution, for instance, and the one they had in France.

Most people aren't yet ready to see gay couples getting married. There's no question that the majority of Americans don't want the states to recognize gay marriage.

However, opponents of gay marriage hurt their cause when they advocate the passage of constitutional amendments, propositions, etc. to ban gay marriage. Such laws have brought the "gay marriage debate" to the forefront of national politics and suggest that the issue is so important that legislators should spend time on it during wartime and a deep recession. Think about it, a few short years ago there was no debate over gay marriage outside of academia. Now, it's all over the news and people like us are giving it serious thought.

Moreover, gay marriage bans are powerful and highly visible symbols of inequality. It's not the same as seeing dogs bite at people peacefully marching in Birmingham, but it will lead to the same result. U.S. history shows that visible symbols of inequality tend to spur debate and typically result in the extension of civil rights.

[Dirtbag59]

Heres a page that help debunks the myths spread by the yes on prop 8 movement. Sad to see that they got away with lies convincing people that suddenly homosexuality was going to be forced on everyone including unsuspecting school children and churches would be forced to shut down due to discrimination. Which personally might have been the only "genuine" reasons to vote yes on 8, but with that said maybe the churches should reexamine their stance on this issue.

No On 8, Don't Eliminate Marriage For Anyone

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

However, opponents of gay marriage hurt their cause when they advocate the passage of constitutional amendments, propositions, etc. to ban gay marriage. Such laws have brought the "gay marriage debate" to the forefront of national politics and suggest that the issue is so important that legislators should spend time on it during wartime and a deep recession. Think about it, a few short years ago there was no debate over gay marriage outside of academia. Now, it's all over the news and people like us are giving it serious thought.

I don't buy this. You are saying that no one ever thought of supporting gay marriage until someone opposed it first. This is dubious. And don't discount the influence of academia. I bet I could get from Harvard Yard to the Massachussets Supreme Court in less than par. If not physically, then certainly intellectually.

Our government is based on compromise. I am willing to extend all the legal rights of marriage to homosexuals. Since homosexuals are not really under seige in any serious way, is it too much too ask that I and likeminded folk be allowed the single, harmless concession of pretending that the institutions we hold dear will not be thrown under the bus? It is this way with all these issues. The courts leave traditionalists with nothing to hang their hat on, and then the left accuses them of radicalism if they dissent.

I also wouldn't object if the government simply ceased to recognize marriage completely and it became a purely religous designation. Treat everyone as an individual in the eyes of the law. Homosexuals would have no trouble finding Unitarians, etc. to "marry" them and traditionalists wouldn't be required to sanction something they abhor through public institutions. I've never been a big fan of the various benefits that married couples get anyways.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Our government is based on compromise. I am willing to extend all the legal rights of marriage to homosexuals. Since homosexuals are not really under seige in any serious way, is it too much too ask that I and likeminded folk be allowed the single, harmless concession of pretending that the institutions we hold dear will not be thrown under the bus? It is this way with all these issues. The courts leave traditionalists with nothing to hang their hat on, and then the left accuses them of radicalism if they dissent.

In addition to legitimizing unions between man/man and woman/woman, recognizing that "marriage" includes same-sex couples is a shortcut to getting those legal rights. Without that, you would have to enact "separate but equal" laws in every single state. I am not a fan of that.

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I also wouldn't object if the government simply ceased to recognize marriage completely and it became a purely religous designation. Treat everyone as an individual in the eyes of the law. Homosexuals would have no trouble finding Unitarians, etc. to "marry" them and traditionalists wouldn't be required to sanction something they abhor through public institutions. I've never been a big fan of the various benefits that married couples get anyways.

I think the transaction costs would be exorbitant, since, first, you have to overhall all laws relating to marital rights (e.g., taxes, adoption, joint ownership, etc.) and, second, you would have to have to come up with new ways to handle those situations (e.g., how many people could adopt a child?).

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Morality is not the same thing as sexuality. When people say "You can't legislate morality" what they really mean is "You shouldn't legislate sexuality". But even that is unavoidable. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Change should be organic. The people simply aren't ready. Homosexuals should concentrate on passing laws that don't seem like such a frontal assault on traditions that have been developed over many centuries. Revolutions that don't proceed from a strong popular consensus often have dangerous results. This is the difference between the American Revolution, for instance, and the one they had in France.

While I understand the resistance of the mob I will not accept the notion that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has to be scheduled. Yes, you have to draw the line somewhere but where the line is drawn has to be based on sound rational and fairness. One should avoid drawing lines with Tom Delay's pencil.

It is desirable that change be organic but matters of importances shouldn't be sat on. Sometimes issues must be forced (i.e. revolution, civil rights, civil war, etc). You have to confront gay marrige head on instead of tip toeing around it. If you don't the masses will simply assume all is well which is not the case. I am sure when we look back at the gay marriage ban thirty years from now we will wonder how people could favor such blatant injustice.

The French Revolution (a first class clusterfuck) is far too complex to compare to any other revolution let alone the American Revolution. Interestingly one of the contributing factors to the demise of Louis XVI was his financial support of the American Revolution at the expense of his countrymen (bankrupted France).