The Bigots’ Last Hurrah

[wuapinmon]

You see no way a compromise can be obtained. Only hetero sexuals who are of age can be married to one partner at a time. Everyone else gets all the legal benefits through something called civil union. You just don't see that happening.

In other words the gays are going to make sure it gets rammed down someone's throat even if they don't obtain any additional rights by doing so.

I don't see it happening, because, ultimately, it violates the 14th Amendment. Either the law will sort it out, or the right will try a last gasp as a Constitutional Amendment that will fail because not enough people oppose gay marriage, and then we'll be done with it, and we'll all learn to live like grownups. I don't like my neighbors who are shacked up, drink to excess, smoke, and speed through my neighborhood. I don't associate with them, but if they want to get married, the 14th Amendment doesn't say that they can't because they aren't living a virtuous life. Hell, we'll let convicts on death row marry people, but homosexuals cannot.

And I'm not sure I would use "ramming down someone's throat" in discussing this particular issue.

[byu71]

I don't see it happening, because, ultimately, it violates the 14th Amendment. Either the law will sort it out, or the right will try a last gasp as a Constitutional Amendment that will fail because not enough people oppose gay marriage, and then we'll be done with it, and we'll all learn to live like grownups. I don't like my neighbors who are shacked up, drink to excess, smoke, and speed through my neighborhood. I don't associate with them, but if they want to get married, the 14th Amendment doesn't say that they can't because they aren't living a virtuous life. Hell, we'll let convicts on death row marry people, but homosexuals cannot.

And I'm not sure I would use "ramming down someone's throat" in discussing this particular issue.

Far better than talking about " ramming it up...." This is what is wrong with the whole thing. Someone might find the talk offensive who happens to enjoy the ramming, however the same person is upset if anyone else is offended at the thought of marriage outside of traditional marriage and the person is labeled a bigot or homophobe. A lot of time change is about ramming something down someone's throat, I am not going to sit back and worry about every phrase I use because someone might be offended. If I don't mean it to be offensive, then it is their problem if they take offense.

accidently passing gas is a whole lot different than doing it on purpose for effect.

[Tex]

Op-Ed piece in the NY Times yesterday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/op...=1&ref=opinion

(For those too lazy to click on the links provided in the column, the "son of one of the 12 apostles in the Mormon church hierarchy" is Holland's son, the new president of Utah Valley U).

Nice image. Reminds me vaguely of something ...

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

[wuapinmon]

Far better than talking about " ramming it up...." This is what is wrong with the whole thing. Someone might find the talk offensive who happens to enjoy the ramming, however the same person is upset if anyone else is offended at the thought of marriage outside of traditional marriage and the person is labeled a bigot or homophobe. A lot of time change is about ramming something down someone's throat, I am not going to sit back and worry about every phrase I use because someone might be offended. If I don't mean it to be offensive, then it is their problem if they take offense.

accidently passing gas is a whole lot different than doing it on purpose for effect.

Ok, how about if I make it Socratic?

What imagery to you think "ramming down someone's throat" might conjure up in your audience that you didn't intend? Knowing that, do you still think that the phrase, as is, conveys the image you want associated with your opinion?

[LA Ute]

Really too? You think that Prop 8 was about democracy? It took a big-ass dump on the 14th Amendment and the idea of Equal Rights.
[YOUTUBE]
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1SN7Pko_jCM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1SN7Pko_jCM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

That the Church chose to try and use voting to impose our morality on others pisses me off to no end, and I'd be lying if I said it didn't wound my testimony. Homosexuality being a 'sin' should have absolutely jack-shit to do with whether or not two people can marry.

Aren't you an academic? If so, your vocabulary should be much more sophisticated. All that barnyard stuff! Come on, prof!

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I don't see it happening, because, ultimately, it violates the 14th Amendment. Either the law will sort it out, or the right will try a last gasp as a Constitutional Amendment that will fail because not enough people oppose gay marriage, and then we'll be done with it, and we'll all learn to live like grownups. I don't like my neighbors who are shacked up, drink to excess, smoke, and speed through my neighborhood. I don't associate with them, but if they want to get married, the 14th Amendment doesn't say that they can't because they aren't living a virtuous life. Hell, we'll let convicts on death row marry people, but homosexuals cannot.

And I'm not sure I would use "ramming down someone's throat" in discussing this particular issue.

Wuap, you don't know what you're talking about on this. Your idea that Prop. 8 violates the equal protection clause simply isn't the slamdunk you think it is. As the current jurisprudence on this issue stands, there is no equal protection violation issue. If I remembered Con Law correctly, I think the more likely reason Prop. 8 would be overturned is under the due process clause under some fundamental right being found for gay marriage.

I'm not sure where Justice Kennedy would come out on this one. He's been going a bit more left over the last few years so I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he would go with the four liberal justices on this one.

[LA Ute]

What is missing from Frank Rich's otherwise carefully-reasoned, thoughtful piece is this: 44 states have passed a statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman. 30 have done so by state constitutional amendment. Such proposals have a perfect record of passage so far. (Arizona voters turned down a strident ballot proposition in 2006 but passed a more moderate one in 2008.) To call all those voters bigots or homophobes really seems to stretch the argument, doesn't it?

The only way we'll see same-sex marriage nationally is by judicial fiat (a Supreme Court decision) or a federal statute extending the protections of the Civil Rights Act to gays. I think if the Court does that, we should all get ready for decades of fighting over the ourtcome, just as we've seen over Roe v. Wade and abortion. As for a federal statute, I think we are a long way from Congress taking such action.

In the states, gay marriage will pass in some legislatures. Vermont's legislature has now enacted a statute authorizing same-sex marriage, the only time that has been done through the democratic process. I read that New York's governor wants to push the same type of legislation there. I don't like that result, but I can't really complain, if that's what Vermont's citizens want. My big beef is the judicial imposition of such a change.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

What is missing from Frank Rich's otherwise carefully-reasoned, thoughtful piece is this: 44 states have passed a statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman. 30 have done so by state constitutional amendment. Such proposals have a perfect record of passage so far. (Arizona voters turned down a strident ballot proposition in 2006 but passed a more moderate one in 2008.) To call all those voter bigots or homophobes really seems to stretch the argument, doesn't it?

The only way we'll see same-sex marriage nationally is by judicial fiat (a Supreme Court decision) or a federal statute extending the protections of the Civil Rights Act to gays. I think if the Court does that, we should all get ready for decades of fighting over the ourtcome, just as we've seen over Roe v. Wadeand abortion. As for a federal statute, I think we are a long way from Congress taking such action.

Vermont's legislature has now enacted a statute authorizing same-sex marriage, the only time that has been done through the democratic process. I can't say much against that, if that's what Vermont's citizens want. My big beef is the judicial imposition of such a change.

On social issues, I'm fairly moderate. I probably wouldn't vote for or against a Prop. 8 type measure, though I have to say I lean towards voting against it. It seems literallly the only thing being fought over is the term "marriage." A lot of people against gay marriage still support legal unions with all the legal rights a heterosexual married couple has. So I don't get why this is a big deal for the church and the anti-gay marriage people.

But abortion is an entirely different issue. I could never support abortion/a woman's right to choose. I was talking to my wife how I really don't care about gay marriage, let it happen- but I also told her there is a huge qualitative difference with abortion. For me it is a question of life and death, and I can't get past the idea that abortion snuffs out life. When my wife had her 10 week appointment (or somewhere around there), I still remember hearing my baby's heartbeat for the first time- and that was still the first trimester. There's a lot of people that aren't even that religious that come out on the pro-life side of the issue because their experiences with pregnancy, babies and children.

I don't think you get the same divisiveness on gay marriage. A lot of people just don't see the harm in gay marriage and I think society will move more towards that opinion. Support for and against abortion seems to have been fairly constant over the years, I don't see that divide ever getting resolved.

[DU Ute]

On social issues, I'm fairly moderate. I probably wouldn't vote for or against a Prop. 8 type measure, though I have to say I lean towards voting against it. It seems literallly the only thing being fought over is the term "marriage." A lot of people against gay marriage still support legal unions with all the legal rights a heterosexual married couple has. So I don't get why this is a big deal for the church and the anti-gay marriage people.

But abortion is an entirely different issue. I could never support abortion/a woman's right to choose. I was talking to my wife how I really don't care about gay marriage, let it happen- but I also told her there is a huge qualitative difference with abortion. For me it is a question of life and death, and I can't get past the idea that abortion snuffs out life. When my wife had her 10 week appointment (or somewhere around there), I still remember hearing my baby's heartbeat for the first time- and that was still the first trimester. There's a lot of people that aren't even that religious that come out on the pro-life side of the issue because their experiences with pregnancy, babies and children.

I don't think you get the same divisiveness on gay marriage. A lot of people just don't see the harm in gay marriage and I think society will move more towards that opinion. Support for and against abortion seems to have been fairly constant over the years, I don't see that divide ever getting resolved.

I agree that the divisiveness over gay marriage will never match that of abortion, but I think there will always be a significant amount of tension over the subject. I don't think we'll ever see gay marriage divisiveness die down to the level we currently have over the issue of race.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I agree that the divisiveness over gay marriage will never match that of abortion, but I think there will always be a significant amount of tension over the subject. I don't think we'll ever see gay marriage divisiveness die down to the level we currently have over the issue of race.

I disagree on this. Late night comics will continue making gay jokes or laughing at effeminate closeted men (example, Jimmy Kimmel playing a clip of an extremely effeminate dad from that baby/small girl beauty pageant show and whole crowd busting a gut). You can't pull that off about racial minorities.

However, I think the fear of homosexuals will continue to subside. Although a segment of the population will always view them as immoral, it won't be the same portion of the population that don't like abortion because they think it's the purposeful taking of a life. One view is limited towards people with certain religious views and the other has a wider base because it touches upon more fundamental ideas of what is life and whether we have the right to take it away.

[LA Ute]

However, I think the fear of homosexuals will continue to subside. Although a segment of the population will always view them as immoral, it won't be the same portion of the population that don't like abortion because they think it's the purposeful taking of a life. One view is limited towards people with certain religious views and the other has a wider base because it touches upon more fundamental ideas of what is life and whether we have the right to take it away.

I think you may have a point, but I am not sure the difference would be that great. People simply do not like a court telling them "how it is" on something as fundamental as what marriage means. Personally, I could live with a court doing that, although I would not like it and would worry about what else a court might change about my life and my children's lives in a 5-4 decision.

I also think it is important to bear in mind that although there doubtless are people who opppose gay marriage because of "fear of homosexuals," that isn't everyone. It is more than simplistic to say that's what is primarily behind the opposition to re-defining marriage. That some people take a position on an issue for the wrong reason does not mean their position is invalid or that the opposing view is valid.

[wuapinmon]

Wuap, you don't know what you're talking about on this. Your idea that Prop. 8 violates the equal protection clause simply isn't the slamdunk you think it is. As the current jurisprudence on this issue stands, there is no equal protection violation issue. If I remembered Con Law correctly, I think the more likely reason Prop. 8 would be overturned is under the due process clause under some fundamental right being found for gay marriage.

I'm not sure where Justice Kennedy would come out on this one. He's been going a bit more left over the last few years so I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he would go with the four liberal justices on this one.

Time will tell. When the laws get overturned, if it's due process and not the 14th, you can remind me of this. However, I think the 14th is the way to go.

[wuapinmon]

Aren't you an academic? If so, your vocabulary should be much more sophisticated. All that barnyard stuff! Come on, prof!

I'm not in the classroom, and when I make my vocabulary more sophisticated people dig on me for that too. I am capable of writing a higher prose than evidenced in your quotation, but I don't want to have to. Take me as I am or ignore me.

[LA Ute]

I'm not in the classroom, and when I make my vocabulary more sophisticated people dig on me for that too. I am capable of writing a higher prose than evidenced in your quotation, but I don't want to have to. Take me as I am or ignore me.

OK.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I'm not in the classroom, and when I make my vocabulary more sophisticated people dig on me for that too. I am capable of writing a higher prose than evidenced in your quotation, but I don't want to have to. Take me as I am or ignore me.

Here's a very quick and incomplete crash course on this topic. The 14th Amendment contains both a due process clause and equal protection clause.

Laws are ruled unconstitutional under the equal protection clause if they don't pass either a strict scrutiny or rational scrutiny test. A strict scrutiny test is applied if the law concerns a "suspect class" of people. Amongst other classifications, racial minorities are regarded as a suspect class- women are not completely regarded as suspect class. Strict scrutiny means that the government better have a very compelling reason or the law will be unconstitutional under the strict scrutiny test. Hardly any law can meet this standard. If the law doesn't concern a suspect class, then a rational scrutiny standard is applied, the government only needs a rational reason behind the law for it to be upheld.

There is no way in hell the supreme court is going to deem gays to be a suspect class. That would open up a pandora's box that they would rather just not have to deal with. If they grant the suspect class designation for gays, then it will produce a cascade of follow-up law suits involving laws (e.g. adoption laws, don't ask don't tell) that the SC won't want to deal with by virtue of a ruling in a gay marriage case. And again, they've never even given this classification to women. They're going to subject laws that touch upon gays to a tougher standard then they do for ones that touch on gender. Supposedly, the counsel representing the anti-Prop. 8 people didn't even bother attacking the prop. under the equal protection clause.

The far more likely way that gay marriage bans will be overturned is under the due process clause. If a "fundamental right" is recognized by the court, then the due process clause prohibits the gov't from having a law that violates this fundamental right. A fundamental right has been found, amongst other things, for the right to both procreate and use birth control. It's not a huge leap to think that the court could find a fundamental right for one human being to marry another human being (as long as they're both of proper age). It's far more narrow than the equal protection clause and it won't open the court up to a slew of additional lawsuits dealing with laws that have a lot more public support (e.g. gays can't adopt children).