« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Review & Analysis: California High Court High On Itself - Says Yes To Gay Marriage
In a decision that will undoubtedly spark just as many legal challenges as it will controversy, the California Supreme Court in a 4 to 3 decision ruled to endorse gay marriage. Over tuning a referendum by 61% of California voters who weighed in on the 2004 ballot initiative regardless of political affiliation to initially ignore their votes and proceed ahead in what the California high court perceived as the right thing to do. Chief Justice Ronald George issued a statement saying "“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” the Chief Justice continued, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.” adding "we cannot find a reason to legally support a ban on same sex marriage".
This article is not going to weigh in on the lawfulness or legality of the argument underneath this all; that is a whole other topic by itself. But to identify what the High Court did, and what the lawfulness or legality in how they came about to their decision impacts the electorate as it pertains to the will of the people. Now, having stated this... dissenting High court judges knew this was going to be a problem, and therefore challenged right away added in sharp dissent "...But a bare majority of this court,” added Justice Marvin J. Baxter, “not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views [as a substitute] for those expressed by the People themselves.” Now, having both sides stated clearly, we have to present the playing field as it is know so the both arguments will bear themselves out and fall into place as admissible or dismissible as we move along here.
The playing field [so to speak] is what America is constitutionally? That is simple to answer if you know what our national documents reveal as the source of inspiration for the development of our laws, then government. We are a republic - basically, one man... one vote. Ok, so how do we express one man, one vote? We do it democratically under the rule of law. Simply put, we are 50 states codified together under a federal umbrella of protections, expressed [therefore governed] by the rule of law, and only practice some democratic elements in bringing the "voice of the people" into the spectrum of governance. We have a tripartite form of government that is unique in all the world and works when we aren't attempting to "interpret" the law over understanding its clear meaning. Chief Justice George took careful consideration of his words when crafting his responses, note he used the words "interpret" in his pursuit of delivering what he feel should be offered unilaterally regardless of lawfulness, and that being said, is the difference between lawfulness understood by social conservatives and legality required by liberals. Law is moral at its roots, it clearly divides the line between minimum standards in individual self governance acceptable to a people for its self preservation and that of behavior clearly falling short of that accepted standard, therefore under the law.
Here is the danger in interpreting the law rather than submitting to its commonly understood and acknowledged meaning. Interpretation itself is an act of will. It doesn't wait for the revelation of its under sting to come to the root of its known meaning, it "chooses" [notice the rhetoric] to clearly adopt what is comfortable to deal with at the moment, and discards what is left [again] for what is comfortable to deal with. In short, interpretation is a form of rebellion... one doesn't want to know or care to know what is right in a given situation or issue, it will parse what it can handle and ignore the rest. In recapping what was just highlighted:
• Legality: Is preferred by liberals because anything can be made legal. Thus the reason why they reject moral clarity in their legislation as it is more palpable to govern by the political correctness of popular opinion.
• Lawfulness: Is preferred by social conservatives because true law is not justly enforceable with a principled foundation. Moral clarity provides that in the least intrusive manner possible in governing a broad populous of people regardless of ethnicity or culture.
What was disturbing about what followed shortly after the ruling came down was the posturing on the liberal side of the isle. As is there was a valid justification to be offering in snubbing the will of the people in lieu of some shortsighted legal postulation for the High Court. Other voices started to chime in on the matter offering whatever points they felt would validate their positions further. “This decision will give Americans the lived experience that ending exclusion from marriage helps families and harms no one,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a special interest group dedicated to the advancement of the homosexual lobby added that same-sex marriages were legal in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa and Spain. The next and obvious question is... who cares what Belgium, Canada, The Dutch, South Africans nor the Spanish do. Our tax dollars do not support their governments, neither does it vice-versa. Our national sovereignty isn't subject to the bully pulpit of global interventionism. That is the dividing line between a revolution looking for support through global consensus, and right minded people standing up and defending and institution that has preempted every form of government since the beginning of time.
The High Court broke the law in supporting an invalid position by first off associating a sexual behavior and confusing it with one's own color. Depraved is the mind that confuses and makes those distinctions. The liberal contingent in the court went back to a 1940 civil rights ruling based on color to support their baseless interpretation. Our constitution protects what you are, not who you become... one's sexual choices are not deserving the same protections as the inalienable right to defend and protect a person’s right to engage the culture based on what they are over the choices they make. It is irrational as it is illogical to make those assertions. But yet the court was high on itself and did just that, not content to have their arguments weighted out in the free marketplace of ideas, not having a shred of intellectual honesty or moral fortitude to hold their ideals under the light of balanced discussion. They hide behind the leverage of court appointed fascists who lie in wait to make their Orwellian social fantasies come true.
Comments (75)
So, are you arguing that sexual orientation is purely a choice? If a law was passed making heterosexual activities illegal, but permitted homosexual activities, by your logic it would then make sense to just engage in homosexual activities, right?
I couldn't abide by such a law, and through empathy I can't abide by laws that discriminate against homosexuals, either. If you recognize that you can't stop being a heterosexual by choice, then I hope you have enough imagination to understand that homosexuals can't just stop being homosexual either. Sure, there are people somewhere in the middle who can "bat for either team", but those of us squarely in the heterosexual camp are ill-advised to be judging those who were born differently.
May 18, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I can stop laughing long enough to type this all out .... hahaha ..... if they need a textbook case of rationalizing hatred and bigotry they should include this rant of darkness as exhibit A. "depraved is the mind" that can never stop assuming the morally superior fantasy that you chose to be straight and damnit if those fags had any real balls and morals they would choose vaginas too. Much as I always wonder why the hell you care so much what everyone else is doing in their bedrooms ... please just fuck whomever you want who wants you back and leave the fucking rest of us alone!
May 18, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The purpose of law is to divide what is lawful, not just "legal" from that which [is entertained broad scale] certainly would spell a disaster for the long term security and prosperity of a nation.
Whether or not you could or wouldn't abide such a law is mute. The standard has to be in place make the the enforceable line there. Most homosexuals I have spoken to are not into the politicizing of their sexual choices, they understand quite clearly what they are engaging in. That is in line with a number of polls I have read including Peer reasearch, Zobgy, Barna and a few others.
My friend, you don't' have a right to be gay because you choose.... that is the whole point. You can get away with it because it is permitted, that is the whole point. What society as a whole dictates as to where their tolerance levels needs to set. Not by a court, but by the people. That is why these so-called progressives attack institutions that remind convict their behvaior - it isn't rocket science my friend.
Lastly, one isn't born gay, it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to insist on such, they haven't found such data to support those claims, and they never will. People that believe that want a all inclusive stop-the-presses, you can't fight it answer to it; but in the end, it is a simple matter of choice, and a choice nonetheless that people simply don't have to respect, respond, not tolerate if they do not wish.
Homosexuals in America have been survived by the graces of those who wish it kept out of their sight and away from their children, these are people on both sides of the isle, so politics have nothign to do with it. It is a matter of what is lawful over what is permissable.
May 18, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jefferson. Tyranny of the Majority. Look into it.
They've found a single gene in Drosophila melanogaster that will make a straight fruit fly effectively bisexual. A variant on this same gene was more recently discovered that rendered them completely homosexual. Is it such a stretch to imagine that similar genes affect humans? Obviously, it's far more complex in humans, but for you to insist that no such data exists is the "height of intellectual dishonesty".
May 18, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hollywood,
How can you be a bigot against a lifestyle? You make no sense. You place too much emphasis on the perceived value of how you want to live over its impact on society as a whole. But let me guess, you are probably green friendly though... right? Ever check the fumes you're giving of? Far more toxic pal, far more.
May 18, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Hocking
You have to be kidding right? Jefferson was not referring to a minority of people sexual choices and you know that. that is the problem, some of you are so incensed about your sexual choices you cannot think clearly. Jefferson was referring to mob-rules democracy, if you want to actually want to know what the man was thinking.
Lastly, only scientism, not science has a vested interest in advocating your lifestyle. Frankly, I have no interest in your personal choices as long as they remain out of the courts, mainstream media and classrooms. They've overstepped their mandate there, I am sorry, but the people time and time again disagree with you.
May 18, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, such as a mob of us heterosexuals imposing our will on the minority of homosexuals.
What's scientism? Science that you disagree with? Science that doesn't agree with your "gut"? Do you think the studies on Drosophila are made up? Unreproducible? These were not isolated experiments. They've been reproduced in labs across the world by people of varying political ideologies. You're a riot, you are.
May 18, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad you asked, it certainly isn't new. But here you go, a simple explanation. Science is objective, and scientism is subjective. Science is based on disproving a thing to prove it. Scientism doesn't give a flying left toenail, it advocates what is closest to its ideals. Sound familiar? it should, that nutty gay scientists in at US San Diego [let go my eggo], was made a laughing stock because he doctored his entire study group.
This is why not a work has ever come up again about "genetically' gay men and lesbian women. This information is out there, I suggest you find it and incorporate it into you repertoire of disinformation, you would only be bettered by it, and I am not saying this to be sarcastic. It is obvious there is much you do not know.
May 18, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before there was Google Scholar, there was Scirus. Use it. If not, Google Scholar works as well.
Note how many different authors there are who have published on this, and from how many different schools, labs, and even countries they originate. Education. It's a good thing.™
May 18, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The historical incompetence in this essay is truly mind-boggling.
"1 man - 1 vote' is the hallmark of a DEMOCRACY, not a REPUBLIC.
In a republic, certain issues are EXEMPT from the will of the electorate - which is the entire reason for a Bill of Rights in the first place.
And the California Supreme Court - in its wisdom - has decreed that the previously democratically-voted law violates the terms of the state Constitution - and is therefore unconstitutional. It really can't be any clearer - except to someone blinded by hypocrisy and bigotry.....
For I am certain that had voters had their say in 1969, blacks and whites would still be barred from marrying in many American states.....and in a few states blacks would be seeking their refreshing drink of water in locations segregated from their fellow white citizens.
May 18, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gayithican,
"The historical incompetence in this essay is truly mind-boggling"
Ah, no it isn't because the same people that brought us democracy... gave enlightened the Roman's. So, your mini rant is nothing more than idle-minded lip dribble.
The California High Court in its defiance has ignored the rule of law in favor of the rule of flaw, and it will be turned over. Any highly evolved life-form insane enough to confuse skin color for a rump pucker can be ignored anyway. You rant is mute... but you are entitled to your opinion. A perceived civil liberty in not a civil right, again you don't have a sovereign right to be gay. I'd have more respect for your position if you were at least honest and said I'm gay because I choose. But tying a minority argument is just insane and not going to work.
May 18, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so science obviously isn't your strong suit. Let's try your imagination. If there was a law passed outlawing heterosexual activities, would you (a) violate that law, (b) abstain from sex, or (c) "choose" to be gay?
May 18, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please pardon a couple of cut-and-paste errors folks.
-My apologies.
May 18, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please pardon my being a complete asshole is more like it.
I am thinking this is punk thing and we are all having fun here .... with the supposed black guy who hates the hell that fags raise their heads out the door in the morning without his permission. And then you are like some sitcom character who tries to argue with mouthfuls of nonsense that is some pretend intellectual/legal analysis that rhymes. I keep laughing .... but if you are for real and black and all then fuck yourself for putting so much energy into getting crazy about how insecure you are about your own damn sex life. Go get laid man. You really really need it. Oh and remember .... when you go outside everyday all day gay men are looking at you thinking you are kinda cute ..... with a cute butt!
May 18, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Hocking
"OK, so science obviously isn't your strong suit. Let's try your imagination. If there was a law passed outlawing heterosexual activities, would you (a) violate that law, (b) abstain from sex, or (c) "choose" to be gay"
Obviously engaging in fruitless subterfuge is winning you any points as well. Listen, I care about your personal sexual choices. Let's make that perfectly clear - but you cannot argue logic, but we aren't even there. Let's talk just nuts and bolts rationale... wait - that might even be a little subjective for you. Here, let's just use common sense.
If we were created any other way, your argument would have more validity. But, you and I know that is not how we got here is it? We don't have laws aimed at killing homosexuals, so nice try - go talk to Ahmadenijad. Gay is a choice, just like being a lawyer. When you've had enough - you stop, and don't say there aren't people leaving the lifestyle either. You need to talk to ex-gays, your tune would radically change.
Sorry pal, you aren't bringing compelling arguments to support your positions, mostly emotions and conjecture. Listen, I am not your maker nor am I coming at you with the almighty finger condemning you. As a Christian [who lives it] I know that isn't right, I'm just saying the court acted outside of its legal mandate, and they know it, that's all the article was about.
May 18, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like you're incapable of answering the question. Let me point this out again. It wasn't an argument, it was a question. What do my abilities have to do with your in ability to answer a simple question? Let's try it again:
If there was a law passed outlawing heterosexual activities, would you (a) violate that law, (b) abstain from sex, or (c) "choose" to be gay?
May 18, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try. Somebody poke him with a stick again .... he is just getting warmed up..... he is a CHRISTIAN "who lives it" ooooohh! "Gay is a choice just like being a lawyer" Dude that is hillarious! I could sell a hundred Tshirts with that on at the next Gay Lawyers Association meeting.
May 18, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of me wonders if this isn't just Billy yanking our chain. I wouldn't put it past him… :D
May 18, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I think we have been had, but was kinda fun.
May 18, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I tried being nice about since you want to be funny... I made it clear, but you quipped:
"If there was a law passed outlawing heterosexual activities, would you (a) violate that law, (b) abstain from sex, or (c) "choose" to be gay?"
I don't have time to be stuck in fantasy land with you... I addressed and dismissed your silliness as subterfuge, and that is just what it was. My suggestion is that you buck up, and deal with the reality that homosexuality doesn't have to be and will never be accepted broad based, it is against our created order and there is huge a danger in normalizing it, and the law doesn't have to folow you there. It is that simple, you are foolish.
May 18, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where's the subterfuge involved in a simple question. It's a frakking question. How can it be subterfuge?
Don't get me wrong, I know the reason you won't answer the question, as you've already given yourself away with this:
I'll make it easier for you:
If God said that sex between a man and woman was wrong, but that sex between men (or between women) was holy, and there was a law passed outlawing heterosexual activities, would you (a) violate that law and anger the Lord your God, (b) abstain from sex, or (c) "choose" to be gay?
May 18, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hollywood,
"with the supposed black guy who hates the hell that fags raise their heads out the door in the morning without his permission. "
You of course realize that you are perpetuating an evolving revelation that it is liberal that are the extreme bigots and not conservatives when you spout nutty crap like you let roll off your fingers. C'mon now this is just foolishness. I know who talks crap and who means well... and over the years it is the left that is been full of crap simply lying to people, just for power... nah, I'll pass.
May 18, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
My right honorable friend, please do show me proof that homosexuality is scientifically and strictly a choice? In fact, please reveal your sources that heterosexuality isn't a choice?
May 18, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You see, that's the bind he's put himself into. If homosexuality is a choice, than heterosexuality must also be a choice, which the point of the question I've asked him multiple times that he keeps avoiding. For he will either have to admit that he could choose to be gay, or admit that he couldn't. Either one pains him too much to admit, so instead he tries to insult me or otherwise divert attention from the fact that he won't answer a simple question.
May 18, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Hocking,
Don't make a theological argument you could never hope to win. For your information, both hetero and homosexual fornication is lawlessness to God. But again, I wasn't making a theological argument. Defending the sanctity of marriage can be fought and won without even having to go there. I don't have time for your ifs - I don't need to deal in the unreal to suppose something that isn't anyhow. How about you bringing you mind under subjection to the natural way of things? How's that for a change?
May 18, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
My mind already is under subjection to the natural way of things. I wasn't the one bringing the supernatural into it—that was you. I merely followed your lead on that one.
So, do you admit you are unable to answer a simple question? Is it really that easy to stump you?
May 18, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, dude, when was the last time (only time?) you got laid??? If any fornication is godless when was the last time you snuck out on god almighty and got your nuts swinging?? I think that is your motivation here man. If you would just learn to bust a nut on your own without feeling guilty and all, we fags at TPM would be able to get on with Sunday. OK?
May 18, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, do you have to be so vulgar? lol!
May 18, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I already know where your 1849 is going so.. here let's close this up all nice and tidy like. I love these questions. Here Behindstein, it's called empirical evidence! you don't even have the intelligence to investigate your own liberal rhetoric before you attempt to think you are lowering the boom on someone more clear thinking?
The language of sexual orientation didn't get here until the sixties, but not put into wide usage until the seventies and was a mainstay by the eighties. Orientation is an adverb, or do you need a dictionary?
So here:
OK... Form the lips on your palatte!
"Ȯr-ē-ən-ˈtā-shən, -ˌen-\
Function: noun / adverb
Date: 1839
1 a: the act or process of orienting or of being oriented b: the state of being oriented;
If you are created male or female, and choose to engage in alternative sexual hi-jinks, what is that? Evolution? get real? Mr. 1849 kindly get 2008, folks aren't buying that BS anymore. Why would one have to be "oriented" if they didn't have a choice?
Resolved.
Science works on what is there, ergo, the empirical nature of what we are upon presentation - attracted to each others opposites. Man for woman, woman for man. It cannot be argued that our natural inclination toward the opposite sex isn't innate. We just have the mind to deviate that is all, that mind is not present in animals, and before you pose it, just know Darwinian Naturalism has no answer either.
Resolved.
If your argument had any legs - the phenom would be more prevalent in nature, we'd see gay ducks, and lesbian gorillas, bi-curious polar bears; but [geez] somehow it isn't? Hmmm, go figure? We got here because a man and a woman had sex, and the mother carried the child to term and produced the next generation. The one thing science cannot argue is what came before us, therefore neither can you. They just have to explain it to us now, objectively, not subjectively.
Sorry this interrupted Deep Space Nine for you there pal, I'll let you get back to 7and9... hope the hot pockets are still warm.
May 18, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So it is your considered opinion that homosexual activities have never been witness in animals, is that it?
May 18, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Draw a distinction between natural order and fallen nature. There is a difference...
May 18, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fallen? From where? Look, I don't believe in the supernatural, so whatever myths you're following don't apply to me. OK?
May 18, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
(By the way, not that it's the least bit relevant, but I get the feeling you're operating under the mistaken impression that I'm gay. I'm not. In fact, I've been married for 15 years. I'm just comfortable enough with my own heterosexuality that I don't have to hate on those who are different.)
May 18, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above comment was for Mr. Hocking.
May 18, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still haven't answered a very simple question, I noticed. I repeated it 3 times, and you've even commented on it yourself, so you can't pretend you haven't noticed it. Why is it so hard to answer?
May 18, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't that I won't answer, it is off in fantasy land to indulge it. That's all - I ain't hatin' just makes no sense to answer in context to the over que of relevance.
May 18, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
overall que of relevance.
May 18, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, are you incapable of answering a hypothetical question?
(Hypothetical questions, by their very nature, are often in "fantasy land". Do you really lack the imagination to answer a hypothetical question?)
May 18, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Logic lacks imagination, however - if you like, post a blog to that effect and I will answer it. I have not indulged anyone here, I won't make exceptions. It keeps the pot pure...
May 18, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there's anyone else on TPM with the same worldview as you, so I'm not going to waste TPM real estate with a question to a single person.
Ironically, that's illogical. It's almost a koan. Did Einstein lack logic? Did Galileo? Newton? (I already know what you think about Darwin.) Does the phrase "Gedanken Experiment" mean anything to you?
No, let me guess: you think the world's flat and was invented 6,000 years ago, don't you?
Einstein, Galileo, and Newton are probably all heretics in your eyes.
May 18, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyway... not here to point finger, and I am confident I haven't. Just didn't want to topic derailed by sophism. I appreciate all the opposing points of view, even the crass one's - it is what it is.
May 18, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben:
Don't you miss the good old days - when the majority of citizens like you and I OWNED folks - and voted to count them as only 3/5 of a man?
And the thought that folks like that would actually be considered the EQUALS of folks like you and me was absolutely unthinkable?
Me too!
May 18, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do miss the days when people thought more and felt less because they didn't indulge visceral distractions because they suffered from butt pucker retention deficit disorder. Any highly evolved life-form who thinks my skin color can be confused in any way with an overt sexual deviant sexual proclivity... has more issues than Newsweek.
Mr. Ithican [by your namesake alone] you made the cover.
May 18, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to go with, "no". You're not drawing me into that one! ;)
May 18, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Draw you into what? It was your digression Einstein, so be it.
May 18, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the issue of slavery was not my digression. Get your facts straight, if you can.
May 18, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
However, I do think it strangely ironic that your little diatribe actually illustrates the triumph of lawfulness over legality. It was LEGAL to own slaves, but was it morally right to [therefore]lawful to? No surely not... and we know it in our heart of hearts. Now how come the heart of hearts conviction not succumbing to all of the social inducement the MSM, Hollywood and Madison Ave? .... that's what I thought, nothing.
We went to war to embellish that point that it wasn't, who is going to war over the right to morally equivocate marrying a tea-bagging bottom boy? and then have the unmitigated gall to call someone who abhors the behavior a bigot - one cannot be a bigot regarding behavior. You got it twisted there palsy-walsy. Law is that which can be morally enforced by holding you physically accountable if neccesary. All else is policy and social acceptance.
May 18, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you didn't indulge anyone here. Or, was that simply an excuse not to answer a very simple hypothetical question?
May 18, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The above addressed to Mr. Sparta Withdrawls [aka Gayithica]
May 18, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I think you're revealing more about the source of your homophobia than you intend…
You know who else preached against homosexuality? Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Glenn Murphy Jr., Bob Allen, and Jim West. Notice a pattern?
May 18, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Homophobia, please don't use that retarded PC dribble here, there are people with real medical issues to have them trivialized with your looseleaf binder politically correct brow beating. Give it a rest.
May 18, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
By any other term, the idea remains that those who are most vocal against homosexuality are usually unsure of their own sexuality. Maybe that's why you want it to be a choice so bad. Look, I apologize for calling you out. There's nothing wrong with being gay, but being a gay-hating gay is sad.
May 18, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes, you see, people have relied on the courts to protect them from rank bigotry. The masses, sometimes, cannot be counted on to protect each other--see, the tyranny of the majority, et al. The same who argue today that homosexuality is a sin argued decades ago that God made some races superior and some inferior and to let them co-mingle is to sin against God's will. The details of the bigotry changes, but the name is still the same.
May 18, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yours has to be the most bass-ackwards responses in the thread, we've already convered your cue card rhteotic, hang it up already. Feel free to edumacate your self...
May 18, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is educated. You're the one who's failed to learn anything.
May 18, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I somehow don't get the I deal that you are the best gauge for educated. As a matter of fact, I'd lobby you last for info. As for your shameless plug of your lady friend, look before you leap.
May 18, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, my education bona fides are readily available. If you want to find papers I've authored, you can go back to the aforementioned Google Scholar and search on author:ab-hocking.
May 18, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, it occurs to me, that I'm telling this to someone who considers "Einstein" to be an insult.
May 18, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, by the way, if you want to question my sexuality some more, I'll even throw you a bone: I taught ballroom dance to help pay my way through college back when I was working on my undergraduate degree. Does that help you?
May 18, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, sounds like primer right out of Penthouse Forum, whatever... Look, like I mentioned before Mr. Mature - I don't' have beef with you nor anyone here. You just wanna go off road, and that is not how maintain the integrity of the thread. I very, very well educated... and I don't' feel my way around subjects. I don't base my arguments with a perception of value, I am not smelling my own fumes either.
I answer questions directly with fact... and don't venture into uncharted territory. Give it a friggin rest already, you're not going to make a valid point that can hold water, you're better off being intellectually honest and just say I prefer my lifestyle and don't see a reason to change it. I can see that... that makes sense.
May 18, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think you've already proven that you don't answer questions. At all. I asked you a very simple one that you still haven't answered.
(You're right that I went off road there. I apologize.)
May 18, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get cute... you've done nothign but insist that I lower my standard. Hmmm, that sound pretty familiar to you?
May 18, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
How am I being cute, and how am I asking you to lower your standard? Is asking you to answer a simple question the same as asking you to lower your standard?
Look, I'll make it even easier for you by posing a simple yes/no question to you: could you choose to be gay?
May 18, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Hocking
You gave already made that choice.
May 18, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
correction, have made that choice... at any rate. I'm outa here for the night.
May 18, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That wasn't the question.
Look, since I've already telegraphed it above, I'll lay it out for you: there are two possible answers to that very simple question:
(1) Yes, you could choose to be gay. Well, then that makes you different than me, as well as several other heterosexuals, as well as several other homosexuals. Yes, there are people who can make such a choice. I'm not one of them, and whether or not you are, I don't think you'd be willing to admit it. (Which might be the reason you're avoiding the question.)
(2) No, you couldn't choose to be gay. (See how this is an easy, binary choice?) Well, in that case your central thesis that being gay is a choice seems somewhat shattered then, doesn't it?
Face it, your argument is flawed scientifically (as already shown), politically (as already shown), theologically (for reasons I won't go into), and even logically (since it even lacks internal consistency).
May 19, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The wonderful thing is in 20 years we will look back and not be able to believe there were ever people who thought homosexuality was a choice, we will look to them with the same way we look at the people who fought for segregation with their last, pathetic breath. The younger generations see that marriage is a civil rights issue and gay people will have full marriage rights in a manner of decades, and attitudes like this will just be a relic of an embarrassing, intolerant past. You may hang onto your bigotry all you want, but progress will leave you by.
Cheers, Ben.
May 19, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
With minds like your is the political arena it may not be long, we may not have a choice.
May 19, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I shared your optimism, anneeliz. You should realize that some people (including the poster in question) still don't accept simple evolutionary theory (although I suspect he'd want a doctor who understood the problems behind multiple drug resistant strains of bacteria). Expecting them to ever understand the biology or genetics behind homosexuality might be expecting too much. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
May 19, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
There will always be "some people." But fewer and fewer. Polls on even Christian college campuses shows strong support for gay marriage. This guy can rage against it all he wants, but in the end he will be another relic of the vestiges of prejudice. It's important to have a purpose in life.
May 19, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although I disagree with almost every word of this post, I think it does raise an important admonition: just because the result is a moral victory, that does not necessarily imply that the means involved were ethical. And the more vigorously you agree with the result, the less inclined you are to cynically investigate the means. (I know that's true for me, anyway: I almost don't care whether there was legal ground for this particular case, because, in my view, the state supreme court made the only possible correct decision. But that's a dangerous path to tread, so I appreciate reminders that question the process. For the record, in this instance, I believe the decision made was ethically, legally, AND morally mandated.)
Also, two notes for the original poster: the California Supreme Court determined this case on the basis of the California State Constitution, not the federal one; and the prescribed job of the state judicial branch is "interpreting the laws of the State of California."
May 19, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely correct. For example, I believe the Interstate Commerce Clause was abused quite a bit in the interests of Civil Rights. I support the cause 100%, but the means leave me a wee bit queasy.
May 19, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Just for your information, it was the California Supreme Court that struck down in 1948 the laws that forbad interracial marriage in California. Had it been up to the voters at the time the law would have remained in place. Over 70% of Californians were opposed to interracial marriage in 1948."
How are you informing me, I already eluded to Justice George's confused affiliation of race with sexual choice. What you don't understand is, it is a wrong comparison. Homosexuals are not a social minority deserving of special rights any more than other behavior exhibited, and to to admonish that does not make one a bigot. Now, [again' I find myself having to point this out again - the lawful thing was done, not the legal, the more liberal keep pointing that finger the more we reveal just how demented they are and bigoted they are somehow morally equivocating the importance of a deviant sexual proclivity to that of one;s own ethnic background, that's a mind fully lent to its depravity. Sane people don't need to bargain with that.
Secondly,
"Also, two notes for the original poster: the California Supreme Court determined this case on the basis of the California State Constitution, not the federal one; and the prescribed job of the state judicial branch is "interpreting the laws of the State of California."
In case you didn't know... this is not a states rights matter. They have a mold for how they are to form legislation, that includes due process, and not interfering with voter referendum. Are you somehow insisting that states have the right to [when convenient] to ignore the constitutionally established process.
Lastly,
"For the record, in this instance, I believe the decision made was ethically, legally, AND morally mandated.)
"
This is a no brainer, the decision was unethical, unconstitutional, and immoral. It trounced the will of the voters - any excuse you could offer here to promote that bad decision would be mute. This was an egregious miscarriage of the law, plain and simple. That it happens to be aligned with your social values is irrelevant,and does not validate the argument. An activist on the bench weighed in on it, that is that.
By odd chance would you know what the definition of a debased intellect is? It is one that has traded in right for wrong? Its understanding is flip-flopped. Common sense is the common enemy, reason is now unreasonable, and clarity is disparity because something may actually require one to make a clear moral judgment on a given matter. The High Court ignored the U.S. Constitution to which they are subject FIRST, remember that little war between the states - it was all about the states asserting what they felt was important over what actually was. Again what was felt to be legal over what was morally clear, you need a serious adjustment on what you see is moral or not. here's a simple equation that may help you in the future:
Law = objective | Legal = subjective.
It will get over turned, because they simply ignored the law,and international law is irrelevant here and had no basis for its consideration as well.
May 19, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've all heard the bigot talking points. A little surprising to see them being put forward by a black man on a liberal blog site.
Just for your information, it was the California Supreme Court that struck down in 1948 the laws that forbad interracial marriage in California. Had it been up to the voters at the time the law would have remained in place. Over 70% of Californians were opposed to interracial marriage in 1948.
It is surprising to me that any black man would feel it appropriate for people's basic rights to be subject to popular vote. But as we have seen all too often, being the victim of prejudice in no way makes one less likely to be prejudiced.
May 19, 2008 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Otto,
Are you ok? There is no justification for anyone confusing a behavioral importance over ethnics value. Its that simple... and if you can't get that right, who needs to give you the time of day. That's called twisted Otto... twisted.
One cannot be called a bigot for despising bad behavior, the thought to which isn't even rational to consider. You need help Otto... lot's and lot's of it.
May 19, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment