Originally posted by cjbaldw:

Actually, this is a discussion about same-sex marriage and whether or not it is a wise decision for our collective future. You assume discrimination. I disagree. The fact is that no state legislature has even come close to allowing same-sex unions to be recognized as civil marriage. However, knowing that public opinion is firmly against them, same-sex marriage activists have now turned to the courts in an effort to get what they cannot achieve through the democratic process. Several states have heard lawsuits from same-sex couples demanding that they be granted marriage licenses, and as of this moment, Massachusetts and most likely soon to be California have or will have legal recognition of a same-sex civil "marriage."

Oftentimes people bring up the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a comparative analysis, however the huge difference here is that it was the democratic process in Congress that brought about civil rights, not activist judges that are effectively legislating from the bench. Without exception the majority of the population in the U.S. opposes same-sex marriage, including the liberal state of California and the Massachusetts state legislature, and this thread was in fact started because of yet another state in the union enacting the definition of marriage into it's own constitution using the very same democratic process we claim to all cherish. This issue has nothing to do with democratic principles or the enaction of them.



Public opinion was also against the integration of schools in Alabama, but "activist courts" decided properly in that schools should be integrated. That predates the Civil Rights Act. "Activistim" in the courts also has a long history of being ahead of legislation.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

I could very well be wrong, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet that what this really all boils down to, is that same-sex couples want to be accepted as normal in the eyes of society. By that I mean that we can debate the various points of contention surrounding this issue, but what is the end goal, what is the highest need on Maslow's hierarchy of needs? It is to achieve a sense of belonging, to be accepted as normal. Personally, right now, I don't see this occurring with the current makeup of America any time soon. Even if the courts are used as a weapon to force this down American's throat, I believe what will ultimately happen is that the Congress will act to reign in the Supreme Court at that point in time. The supreme court is indeed not as supreme as people believe it to be, there are options the legislative and executive branches have to deal with the court if necessary if our elected representatives feel that the court is overstepping it's bounds, just as the court does in regard to the executive and legislative branches of our gov't. Even taking this out of the equation in the short term, the conservative religious movement will likely never endorse this minority as a legitimate part of society, and I'm not just talking about Christians, though they get most of the attention, but also Jews and Muslims.



I don't see this as an issue of "acceptance", I see it as an issue of recognizing that homosexual couples should be afforded the same privilege that heterosexual could use, abuse, enjoy and curse. The courts do not exist as a "weapon". The courts ensure the right of every American to challenge the laws that often discriminate and divide us. Remember your checks and balances. Part of the job of the courts is to ensure that the word and spirit of the Constitution of the US, our highest law, is upheld with discrimination against anyone, minority or majority.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

Discrimination has become a buzzword that has been grossly overapplied and the pendulum needs to start to swing back in the other direction IMHO.



Homosexuals are denied marriage based on sexual orientation. How is that NOT discrimination? Let me call you attention to this definition of the word -

Discriminate (Dis*crim"i*nate) (?), v. i.

1. To make a difference or distinction; to distinguish accurately; as, in judging of evidence, we should be careful to discriminate between probability and slight presumption.
2. (a) To treat unequally. (b) (Railroads) To impose unequal tariffs for substantially the same service.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

I see your point however when talking about changing something that is critical to a healthy society, it is a bit short sited IMHO to try and boil something down to only discrimination. We should be debating deeply about all of the related issues surrounding same-sex marriage and what it could potentially affect. Given that both AIDS and religion are important factors in our society that are obviously both affected and related to this issue, I disagree with your assessment.



I have asked what it will negatively impact, other in this thread have asked how homosexuals getting married you affect heterosexual couples and no one has been able to respond adequately. Right now in this country, homosexual men and women live as monogamous couples, some raise children. They do everything we heterosexuals do. However, due to their sexual orientation, they can not go and do what you or I could do easily and without an eyelash being batted. The CAN NOT get married to the person they love. Hell, you and I don't even NEED to be in love to marry a woman. Pay the fee, get the license, get a civil official or ordained minister to tell you say "I do" and we are done. They are DENIED that, they are NOT given equal treatment as citizens. They are relegated to second class as thoroughly and a disgustingly as Rosa Parks was when she was told to go to the back of the bus.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Depends on what you mean by legislation in reference to religion. I believe religion is acceptable in the public square. The separation of church and state is yet another grossly misunderstood concept in our modern society. This concept was brought about specifically in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist church in Connecticut. Don't know if you've read it or not but if you have not I would recommend you do. Suffice it to say that what Jefferson was pointing out was that Congress shall make no law respecting any one religion. This in no way means that religion cannot have a significant role in the public square and in shaping the laws of our society from a moral or even a secular standpoint, it merely means that Congress cannot specifically endorse any one religion, i.e. state sponsored religion.



When people base the reason for denying homosexuals the privilege of marriage on "biblical" arguments, it does play a role. The morality at hand is not the right or wrong of the bible, it is the civic morality of "will this bring harm to the nation?" Again, a question not ONE person against homosexual marriage has been able to answer.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

I agree, whatever homo or hetero sexual couples decide to do in the bedroom is not the business of the state. And I agree, "rights" have limits, as should the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Most all of the rights given to us as adults (and only as adults - which is but one limit of most of the rights given to us) come with limits, whether it's driving, voting, drinking, etc., why should marriage be the exception?



And marriage has limits in this country as well. Homosexuals are not asking to be giving special treatment to exceed the limits allows to heterosexuals, they just want the same limits to apply to them.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

Actually it can and it probably will. Unfortunately I have to run and catch a train right now, I'll be back sometime later to elaborate on this point. Of the roughly 6700 people (IIRC) that have applied for same-sex marriage licenses in the Boston area, 40% had previously been in a heterosexual marriage and were divorced from said marriage. So how is it possible for most homosexuals to be disgusted by the thought of heterosexual relations in light of this factual evidence?



I can't wait to see how this would bring harm to America. If marriage for homosexuals is so wrong, maybe heterosexuals should also not be allowed to marry.

Oh, and I said that I personally knew homosexuals that found the idea of straight sex distasteful. Why? Because they are not attracted to the opposite sex! At no time did I claim all homosexuals found the idea distasteful. I am heterosexual, and the idea of two men stuffing pipe doesn't bother me at all. Does this mean I am gay? No. Does it mean I will ever "become" gay? Probably not. Well, maybe if the guy was really hot.

2000 Contour SE Sport Originator of the Beowulf Headlight Mod and the Beowulf CAI