Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Given that the fuss in California is strictly over a word, and nothing else, I fail to see how the desire of one group of people to define that word takes precedence at the level of being an inalienable natural right over the desire of another group of people to define that word another way.

[Frodo]

Better luck next time.... 

[Alcon]

Given that the fuss in California is strictly over a word, and nothing else, I fail to see how the desire of one group of people to define that word takes precedence at the level of being an inalienable natural right over the desire of another group of people to define that word another way.

The fuss in California is strictly over a word in the same way that the issue with segregated water fountains was about "location of drinking facility."  I find your framing to be uncharacteristically disingenuous.  There is an implicit assumption that something (tradition, degradation to an institution) has greater value than the inclusion of gays in the institution.  It is like refusing to invite a relative to a Thanksgiving dinner because they have never been invited before.  Is that a rational, fair denial of rights?  Is it simply semantic?

[Scam of God]

I support Gay Marriage, but I don't want to push it on people. The will come around sooner or later. People in California voted to not have it, so they shouldn't have it.

You aren't "pushing it on people"; the anti-marriage activists are pushing it on you. According to the theory of negative liberty - which is the overriding libertarian ethical system of rights - all liberties are assumed from the outside; government regulations simply take away what already exists. You already had the right to marry outside of the artificial construct that is Proposition 8 -- that Proposition removed from you a pre-existing right.

But if the majority of the people in CA, voted against it and the court over turned it wouldn't that be pushing it on a state that did want it in the first place? I may be wrong here, but that is how I look at it.

That doesn't matter. The courts are in the wrong, and the people of the State are in the wrong - "inalienable rights" are inalienable for precisely this reason, because they are not susceptible to the whims of the ballot box. A spiritual Red like StatesRights, who hates freedom in all of its multifaceted forms, will not understand this; but you must.

A man's negative liberty cannot be taken from him, point blank. You had - and still have - the right to marry wherever you wish.

Marriage is not a right.  Tell the 40 year old who watches Babylon 5 and lives in his mother's basement that marriage is a right.

It most certainly is a right for him, too, provided that he can find a consenting (ego res cogito) person to go on with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who cares what they have to say of it? These mythologized 'Founding Fathers' didn't conjure up out of nothingness liberalism; Thomas Jefferson plagiarized nine-tenths of his metaphysics from John Locke, who we really ought to turn to in such discussions.

[Scam of God]

Given that the fuss in California is strictly over a word, and nothing else, I fail to see how the desire of one group of people to define that word takes precedence at the level of being an inalienable natural right over the desire of another group of people to define that word another way.

Because I have the right to define whatever I wish how I wish. If I want to call myself God, you'd best not contravene me or else I'd knock your teeth down your throat. Likewise, as per Locke's Treatise, "all rights pertaining to affairs of the heart or to affairs of the mind are reserved by the individual, & in no wise should they be delimited by the authority of the masses" - the very structural foundation of our entire theory of liberalism is predicated on the individual's sole authority over such private things. To democratize them, to turn them over to the collective, is to betray liberalism and to betray individualism.

[Lincoln Republican]

Defense of real marriage is neither bigoted nor ignorant.

What gay marriage does in fact do is debase, demean and trivialize real marriage.  Therefore, if gay marriage becomes law, what the gay community has accomplished is in fact to debase, demean, and trivialize real marriage.

Do you have ideas, or do you limit yourself to just opinions?

I find it patently offensive that you think gays entering the same unions "demeans" or "trivializes" the institution.  You may not agree with their relationships, but the idea that they "pollute" our real marriage goes beyond simple knee-jerk theological disagreement.  It's intentionally demeaning and being spiteful against them.  It is bigoted.

I have known many gay marriage opponents who address the issue respectfully -- you are not one of them.

Let me be clear.

Pro gay marriage advocates have been anything but respectful.  They have trodden upon the symbol of Christianity and they have demeaned and physically attacked anti gay marriage advocates.

I will not launch into a personal attack on you and make unwarranted accusations against you as you have on me.

[kcsaff]

I personally believe a graduated emancipation would have been far preferable and less economically crippling to the South.

I think it's a perverse ethic that holds an economy as more important than freedom from slavery.

It's more then the economy as a whole. It has to do with equality and economic fairness. Freeing all the slaves at once collapsed the southern economy and caused resentment among poor whites who had very little before abolition and were just as hurt as the recently liberated blacks. The state of the economy directly affected the freedom of blacks and caused more harm then good. Nothing "perverse" about that other then the fact you disagree with my position on the matter.

But why is "resentment by poor whites" a worse thing than slavery of black people?  Or maybe I am being unfair -- I believe that anyone in this world would rather be poor yet free than to be a slave and therefore poverty is a small price to pay for freedom.  I'm aware that many people of various races did continue to suffer for a long time (nd even today) after this but to my perspective this was not neceassarily any new poverty, but people simply being forced to face the poverty which is already inherent in a slave-holding society.  How can slavery be part of "equality and economic fairness", even in the short term?  Who are you being "equal" and "fair" to if you allow even one person to be a slave?

Now if you want to tickle my pacifist bone by saying the problems were the additional costs incurred by the war in general and certain military actions in particular, you might find a friendlier ear. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is it correct then that you would rank the following items in this order?

• #1 - Your liberties
• #2 - The economy
• #3 - Other people's liberties

This is a peculiar moral system you have, and not one I wish to subscribe to.[/quote]

Closer to :

My God
My Family
My State
My Country
[/quote]

Where do guns, freedom, and the economy fall in this list?  And why are there so few people on it?

[Alcon]

Let me be clear.

Pro gay marriage advocates have been anything but respectful.  They have trodden upon the symbol of Christianity and they have demeaned and physically attacked anti gay marriage advocates.

I will not launch into a personal attack on you and make unwarranted accusations against you as you have on me.

"I find your statement bigoted" is not a personal attack.  A personal attack is, "your tie is ugly and we shouldn't listen to you."  I find your accusations that gays want to damage traditional marriage offensive.  Those are not "unwarranted accusations"?  I doubt that the pro-gay marriage forces are any more apt to be demeaning, or cause physical damage, than any other group that feels suppressed. 

Every ideology has its hateful jerks.  The anti-slavery movement did (as did the pro-slavery movement) -- and admittedly, the less status quo the movement, the likelier it attracts overzealous followers.  What does that have to do with the substance of the debate?  What does that have to do with the quality of the moral argument?  Nothing.

As far as defending your broad, offensive claim -- you are being anything but clear.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Given that the fuss in California is strictly over a word, and nothing else, I fail to see how the desire of one group of people to define that word takes precedence at the level of being an inalienable natural right over the desire of another group of people to define that word another way.

The fuss in California is strictly over a word in the same way that the issue with segregated water fountains was about "location of drinking facility."  I find your framing to be uncharacteristically disingenuous.  There is an implicit assumption that something (tradition, degradation to an institution) has greater value than the inclusion of gays in the institution.  It is like refusing to invite a relative to a Thanksgiving dinner because they have never been invited before.  Is that a rational, fair denial of rights?  Is it simply semantic?

You are making the assumption that a same-gender relationship and an opposite-gender relationship are equivalent and therefore a distinction in terminology violates unenumerated rights of equality so basic that it is a profound denial of rights to have such a distinction.  There are some obvious differences between the two and while I personally do not find the differences significant enough to require a distinction, neither do I see any violation of natural rights significant enough for one group to impose its preferred definition over the other on that basis.  That makes it a political question, which should be handled via the ballot box unless there is language in a State Constitution that can reasonably interpreted to settle the matter.

(Incidentally, I was part of the 22% that voted No on South Carolina's 2006 Amendment 1 that banned not only same-sex marriage, but also any form of same-sex civil union.  The sole desirable feature of that amendment was that it did explicitly state that it made no prohibition upon private contract between two individuals, so presumably things such as property rights, child custody, etc., established by a same-sex relationship and/or divorce in a State that recognized such things would receive due consideration in our courts under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Federal Constitution.  As far as I know, none of the other states that ban civil unions have an explicit clause concerning private contract.)

(see above)

Because I have the right to define whatever I wish how I wish. If I want to call myself God, you'd best not contravene me or else I'd knock your teeth down your throat. Likewise, as per Locke's Treatise, "all rights pertaining to affairs of the heart or to affairs of the mind are reserved by the individual, & in no wise should they be delimited by the authority of the masses" - the very structural foundation of our entire theory of liberalism is predicated on the individual's sole authority over such private things. To democratize them, to turn them over to the collective, is to betray liberalism and to betray individualism.

That reasoning leads logically not to State recognition of both same-gender relationships and opposite-sex relationships by the word "marriage", but to the State not using the word not at all.  A perfectly valid argument, but not the position that is generally being advocated by those passionate on either side of the issue

[Scam of God]

Defense of real marriage is neither bigoted nor ignorant.

What gay marriage does in fact do is debase, demean and trivialize real marriage.  Therefore, if gay marriage becomes law, what the gay community has accomplished is in fact to debase, demean, and trivialize real marriage.

Do you have ideas, or do you limit yourself to just opinions?

I find it patently offensive that you think gays entering the same unions "demeans" or "trivializes" the institution.  You may not agree with their relationships, but the idea that they "pollute" our real marriage goes beyond simple knee-jerk theological disagreement.  It's intentionally demeaning and being spiteful against them.  It is bigoted.

I have known many gay marriage opponents who address the issue respectfully -- you are not one of them.

Let me be clear.

Pro gay marriage advocates have been anything but respectful.  They have trodden upon the symbol of Christianity and they have demeaned and physically attacked anti gay marriage advocates.

What of it? I am required by no 'law' to respect your asinine and primitive belief system; where the Church stands to threaten the inviolable rights of the free man, I stand to threaten it down to its very foundations. When the Church mobilized its mindless millions during the Reagan revolution, it ought to have realized - ought to, but didn't; for the Church's foresight extends little beyond the Books of Daniel and Revelation - that it would only engender a backlash some time down the road.

When you rise up against freedom, I will put you down.

[Scam of God]

That reasoning leads logically not to State recognition of both same-gender relationships and opposite-sex relationships by the word "marriage", but to the State not using the word not at all.  A perfectly valid argument, but not the position that is generally being advocated by those passionate on either side of the issue

Wrong. That reasoning leads logically to the granting of marriage powers to anyone who desires to perform one - e.g., one ought not need to be an ordained minister or Justice of the Peace to assume the authority to marry others, 'legally' or no - and the validity of said marriages to whoever agrees to recognize them.

Now, I agree that the State ought to be out of the marriage business altogether. But until such a time as it elects to surrender that power (quite probably never), then it is beholden upon the State to recognize all marriages conducted between consenting individuals.

I understand how busy you are in trying not to upset your Fusionist/Reaganite masters, but please try to apply your anti-federalism with some care towards intellectual honesty.

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This presumption is not only stupid, it is deliberately disingenuous: all homosexuals in California, prior to the passing of Proposition 8, had the right to wed already; that was not only the finding of the State Supreme Court, but also a very basic derivation from negative liberty - I possess what's called 'real' freedom until the State passes a law declaring otherwise. Ergo, not only did the legalization there of gay marriage not force a 'definition' on heterosexuals, but the heterosexuals who voted for Prop 8 forced their own definition onto the homosexual community.

[Lincoln Republican]

The argument is widely used among pro gay marriage advocates that marriage is a right that should be available to all, at least that should be available to all adults.

Suppose a bisexual man dearly loves a woman and also dearly loves another man, and that the three of them want to be married to one another. 

We will assume that same sex marriage is recognized.

Therefore, this bisexual man and the woman and the other man feel they are being discriminated against because they want to marry one another, so the three of them would be legally married to one another, and marriage to two other people is not recognized. 

The three of them launch a court action arguing their equal rights are being violated because gay couples are now allowed to marry, but the three of them are not permitted to marry each other.

Since gay marriage has been granted, we will suppose, should these three be allowed to marry one another, since marriage is a right that should be available to all adults? 

[Joe Republic]

Assuming all three of them are willing, then why shouldn't they?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Wrong. That reasoning leads logically to the granting of marriage powers to anyone who desires to perform one - e.g., one ought not need to be an ordained minister or Justice of the Peace to assume the authority to marry others, 'legally' or no - and the validity of said marriages to whoever agrees to recognize them.

Except you seemingly don't want the people as a whole, via their government, to have that choice to decide whether to recognize a marriage as such.

People are free to form a relationship with whoever they care to in all fifty States, the question is solely which relationships the government chooses to recognize for purposes of the law and whether it adopts the same name for them regardless of the combination of genders involved.  Unless a government is going to not confer any rights or privileges upon married people that it does not confer on single people, it has the duty to decide what it considers a marriage to be.

I understand how busy you are in trying not to upset your Fusionist/Reaganite masters, but please try to apply your anti-federalism with some care towards intellectual honesty.

Anti-federalism?  I'm an ardent Federalist, i.e. a supporter of a clear demarcation between those facets of government power are exercised at the State level, and which are exercised at the National level.  I will grant that there are far too many people who invoke Federalism only when it suits their policy objectives.

As for Fusionist, considering that by and large I am not a cultural conservative, I don't know where you got the idea that I'm a Fusionist, tho I do have libertarian tendencies.  About the only strongly culturally conservative idea I have is that I wouldn't mind seeing the blue laws come back, but in a manner that allows each business to decide which day of the week they will not be open for business.  However, since I strongly doubt there is much chance of that happening any time soon, I'm not one who would base his vote on such a fringe issue.

(As an aside, the colonial South Carolina blue laws mandated that while Christian-owned businesses were to be closed on Sundays, Jewish-owned businesses could be open on Sunday, but had to be closed on Saturday.)

[Scam of God]

I support Gay Marriage, but I don't want to push it on people. The will come around sooner or later. People in California voted to not have it, so they shouldn't have it.

You aren't "pushing it on people"; the anti-marriage activists are pushing it on you. According to the theory of negative liberty - which is the overriding libertarian ethical system of rights - all liberties are assumed from the outside; government regulations simply take away what already exists. You already had the right to marry outside of the artificial construct that is Proposition 8 -- that Proposition removed from you a pre-existing right.

But if the majority of the people in CA, voted against it and the court over turned it wouldn't that be pushing it on a state that did want it in the first place? I may be wrong here, but that is how I look at it.

That doesn't matter. The courts are in the wrong, and the people of the State are in the wrong - "inalienable rights" are inalienable for precisely this reason, because they are not susceptible to the whims of the ballot box. A spiritual Red like StatesRights, who hates freedom in all of its multifaceted forms, will not understand this; but you must.

A man's negative liberty cannot be taken from him, point blank. You had - and still have - the right to marry wherever you wish.

Marriage is not a right.  Tell the 40 year old who watches Babylon 5 and lives in his mother's basement that marriage is a right.

It most certainly is a right for him, too, provided that he can find a consenting (ego res cogito) person to go on with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who cares what they have to say of it? These mythologized 'Founding Fathers' didn't conjure up out of nothingness liberalism; Thomas Jefferson plagiarized nine-tenths of his metaphysics from John Locke, who we really ought to turn to in such discussions.

Somehow I doubt that your concept of 'negative liberty' would apply to gun ownership, since conveniently your libertarian theories only apply when they aid progressive causes.   

And the same could be said of you, and the rest of your worthless, pseudoconservative Reaganite ilk: you champion 'small government, small government!', until you decide it is time that you want to expand the government so as to better, say, lock up minorities for garbage drug crimes, or restrict a woman's right of self-ownership. You are in fact a far bigger hypocrite and a far less principled individual than I, anyway, because I in fact do not champion gun control on a Federal level - I do, however, believe that it is fine for a local community to opt to restrict guns within its immediate confines, and I have very pragmatic reasons for believing this; I live near to East St. Louis, which has the highest per capita crime rate in the nation.

Incidentally, negative liberty is not my own concept, but instead was formulated first by Isaiah Berlin, classical liberal philosopher and theorist. You'd know that if you weren't terrified of book-learnin'.

[Magic 8-Ball]

The argument is widely used among pro gay marriage advocates that marriage is a right that should be available to all, at least that should be available to all adults.

Suppose a bisexual man dearly loves a woman and also dearly loves another man, and that the three of them want to be married to one another. 

We will assume that same sex marriage is recognized.

Therefore, this bisexual man and the woman and the other man feel they are being discriminated against because they want to marry one another, so the three of them would be legally married to one another, and marriage to two other people is not recognized. 

The three of them launch a court action arguing their equal rights are being violated because gay couples are now allowed to marry, but the three of them are not permitted to marry each other.

Since gay marriage has been granted, we will suppose, should these three be allowed to marry one another, since marriage is a right that should be available to all adults? 

Provided they are willing, sure.

There was an interesting discussion on the radio a few weeks ago about this.  Four or five listeners called in to talk about how they brought an extra player into their marriages.  This situation brings in two incomes and one of the women, provided there are two, functions as a stay-at-home mother.

It's a bizarre idea on its face, but upon reflection, but it might not be a bad one.

[Alcon]

You are making the assumption that a same-gender relationship and an opposite-gender relationship are equivalent and therefore a distinction in terminology violates unenumerated rights of equality so basic that it is a profound denial of rights to have such a distinction.  There are some obvious differences between the two and while I personally do not find the differences significant enough to require a distinction, neither do I see any violation of natural rights significant enough for one group to impose its preferred definition over the other on that basis.  That makes it a political question, which should be handled via the ballot box unless there is language in a State Constitution that can reasonably interpreted to settle the matter.

1. What part of my argument entails the assumption that a same-sex/opposite-sex relationship must be equivalent?

2. Where did I mention state constitutions?  I know that's your primary area of interest on the subject, but my objection to your argument was moral not legal.  If your argument was exclusively legal, then I withdraw the comment, but that wasn't clear.

[Alcon]

The argument is widely used among pro gay marriage advocates that marriage is a right that should be available to all, at least that should be available to all adults.

Suppose a bisexual man dearly loves a woman and also dearly loves another man, and that the three of them want to be married to one another. 

We will assume that same sex marriage is recognized.

Therefore, this bisexual man and the woman and the other man feel they are being discriminated against because they want to marry one another, so the three of them would be legally married to one another, and marriage to two other people is not recognized. 

The three of them launch a court action arguing their equal rights are being violated because gay couples are now allowed to marry, but the three of them are not permitted to marry each other.

Since gay marriage has been granted, we will suppose, should these three be allowed to marry one another, since marriage is a right that should be available to all adults? 

Changing the definition of marriage to include gays does not do anything to erode the definition of marriage as a union of two people, something which Gallup indicates is agreed to by over 90% of Americans.

I happen to be one of those few Americans who wouldn't care if polygamy were legalized in a way that didn't open the potential of rampant legal abuse.  But your argument is a slippery slope argument.  And if the majority of gay marriage supporters buy the argument you're alleging they do, why do fewer than 10% of Americans see polygamy as moral?

For better or worse, there is no slippery slope here -- realistic or ideological.

[MK]

I support Gay Marriage, but I don't want to push it on people. The will come around sooner or later. People in California voted to not have it, so they shouldn't have it.

You aren't "pushing it on people"; the anti-marriage activists are pushing it on you. According to the theory of negative liberty - which is the overriding libertarian ethical system of rights - all liberties are assumed from the outside; government regulations simply take away what already exists. You already had the right to marry outside of the artificial construct that is Proposition 8 -- that Proposition removed from you a pre-existing right.

But if the majority of the people in CA, voted against it and the court over turned it wouldn't that be pushing it on a state that did want it in the first place? I may be wrong here, but that is how I look at it.

That doesn't matter. The courts are in the wrong, and the people of the State are in the wrong - "inalienable rights" are inalienable for precisely this reason, because they are not susceptible to the whims of the ballot box. A spiritual Red like StatesRights, who hates freedom in all of its multifaceted forms, will not understand this; but you must.

A man's negative liberty cannot be taken from him, point blank. You had - and still have - the right to marry wherever you wish.

Marriage is not a right.  Tell the 40 year old who watches Babylon 5 and lives in his mother's basement that marriage is a right.

It most certainly is a right for him, too, provided that he can find a consenting (ego res cogito) person to go on with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who cares what they have to say of it? These mythologized 'Founding Fathers' didn't conjure up out of nothingness liberalism; Thomas Jefferson plagiarized nine-tenths of his metaphysics from John Locke, who we really ought to turn to in such discussions.

Somehow I doubt that your concept of 'negative liberty' would apply to gun ownership, since conveniently your libertarian theories only apply when they aid progressive causes.   

And the same could be said of you, and the rest of your worthless, pseudoconservative Reaganite ilk: you champion 'small government, small government!', until you decide it is time that you want to expand the government so as to better, say, lock up minorities for garbage drug crimes, or restrict a woman's right of self-ownership. You are in fact a far bigger hypocrite and a far less principled individual than I, anyway, because I in fact do not champion gun control on a Federal level - I do, however, believe that it is fine for a local community to opt to restrict guns within its immediate confines, and I have very pragmatic reasons for believing this; I live near to East St. Louis, which has the highest per capita crime rate in the nation.

Incidentally, negative liberty is not my own concept, but instead was formulated first by Isaiah Berlin, classical liberal philosopher and theorist. You'd know that if you weren't terrified of book-learnin'.

Oh, can it.  You're not a libertarian; you're a liberal.  If you were a true libertarian, you would at least direct some of your vitriol toward progressives.  You show no interest in doing so; in fact you side with liberals and socialists (the libertarian's natural enemy!) on every critical issue.  At least you're honest enough to sport a red avatar, which is appropriate because you cheer the Obama administration on every step of the way, even when they attempt to destroy the libertarian values you say you espouse.

[/b]

Well this can be said for most of the libertarians of atlas accept deadman.   

[??????????]

No big news that Einzige is a liberal.

[Lincoln Republican]

Assuming all three of them are willing, then why shouldn't they?

Let me get this straight then.

Not only do you approve of gay marriage, but you approve of tri marriage as well.

[Holmes]

Do you believe in consent? If it is people's prerogative to marry their sister ot 5 other people, then whatever.

I mean, a lot of states already totally allow you to marry your cousins. Geez.

[Joe Republic]

Assuming all three of them are willing, then why shouldn't they?

Let me get this straight then.

Not only do you approve of gay marriage, but you approve of tri marriage as well.

Like I said, as long as all three individuals are happy and not hurting anybody else, it's absolutely none of my concern.  Nor is it yours, or anybody else's either.

Why do you and so many other people find the concept of freedom so difficult to grasp?

[Lincoln Republican]

Do you believe in consent? If it is people's prerogative to marry their sister ot 5 other people, then whatever.
I mean, a lot of states already totally allow you to marry your cousins. Geez.

Now that is really perverse.