City of San Francisco sues State of California

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Can we admit one thing?

Let's try.

 

Mayors in SF and NY,

 

Okay.

 

aided by liberal activist judges

 

I already explained this one to you, but you seem to have some sort of vendetta against the whole court system and believe it should just simply rule on popular opinion. Appearantly the sheep are supposed to decide the rules, not the constitution.

 

If we ALLOW this to happen, the rule of law is effectively dead. They've simply decided that this SHOULD be law and screw anybody who disagrees. There is no legal justification for ANY of their actions.

 

Right, it's breaking the law, and the court stuff is already underway.

 

You know, there's nothing to KEEP you from breaking the law. It's not a do or die thing. It's a line that presents consequences if you cross. The line was crossed, and the courts are hashing through it all right now.

 

You don't want the gov't to get involved? Then get your leaders to actually follow the laws passed by the public.

 

But what if the law is unconstitutional?

 

And all it's going to do is turn a lot of people completely against homosexuals. A lot of innocent homosexuals are going to be the target of a lot of resentment because officials can't be trusted with the offices given to them. There might be violence against gays because a lot of people will have serious problems with officials deciding on law via fiat. They will seek out the easiest scapegoat for all of this --- and since you can't easily assault a judge or a mayor, there will only be one target left.

 

Nobody has heard of any of that happening. This assumption is pretty damn offensive that someone is going to get so angry about a court case and the legislation that follows as to extract violence on someone.

[NoCalMike 0]

The thing is, it is not just NY & CA anymore. Mass, Arizona, and I think New Mexico have joined the party. That is 5 states in a matter of a couple weeks. How long can this simply be written off as "activist judges" I think Bush and the religious right are just trying to hurry this ridiculous ban along because they know in due time, the majority of folks will come around on this issue once they realize and EXPERIENCE the fact that at the same time that gays are getting married, ALL OF THE REST OF US, are still going on, business as usual, paying no attention and not really caring in the least.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Can we admit one thing?

 

Mayors in SF and NY, aided by liberal activist judges or liberal A.G (the NY AG won't do anything to stop gay marriages in NY) have done a bang-up job of completely circumventing our basic governmental structure?

 

Because they don't like a law, they have decided that they don't need to follow it and will not follow it.

 

They have decided that THEIR beliefs are more important than the voters or the legislature. They have decided on a coup d'etat in this issue based on THEIR morality.

 

Crap like what's happened this week is WHY a Constitutional Amendment is needed here. If we ALLOW this to happen, the rule of law is effectively dead. They've simply decided that this SHOULD be law and screw anybody who disagrees. There is no legal justification for ANY of their actions. Don't give me this "civil disobedience" crap because this is not that. This is leaders dictating law to the country.

 

I find it ironic that judges who, say, oppose abortion are routinely denied seats on the bench because they'd substitute their morality for the law --- but THIS isn't drawing A LOT more criticism.

 

What's going on is wrong. Newsom; the mayor of New Platz, NY; the CA Supreme Court; and NY AG Spitzer have refused to do their job and violated their oaths of office.

 

You don't want the gov't to get involved? Then get your leaders to actually follow the laws passed by the public. Pro-life judges don't LIKE abortion --- but they don't do anything to BAN the practice. If a judge did decide that abortion is illegal in his/her precinct, then you'd have a comparable situation --- but with a much less sympathetic portrayal by the media.

 

And all it's going to do is turn a lot of people completely against homosexuals. A lot of innocent homosexuals are going to be the target of a lot of resentment because officials can't be trusted with the offices given to them. There might be violence against gays because a lot of people will have serious problems with officials deciding on law via fiat. They will seek out the easiest scapegoat for all of this --- and since you can't easily assault a judge or a mayor, there will only be one target left.

 

And the target left is the target that doesn't deserve what might end up happening to them.

-=Mike

I don't see it as breaking the law. The Defense of Marriage Act is un-constitutional in my view. It needs a test case, which these recent events are providing. Doubtless California and other states will annul these marriages, and some of the couples will sue, citing the 14th Amendment. And it won't kill the rule of law. The cases must be heard by higher courts eventually. And they'll find the law is unconstitutional. That's why Bush & Co. are pushing for the amendment. Because they're SCREWED otherwise.

 

As for following due process of law, that's not going to work in this case. If we followed due process and didn't use the courts, blacks still wouldn't be allowed to vote in the South. The Constitution prevents the majority from dominating society, which they would in this case. I don't care if disallowing gays from marrying is favored by 95% of the population. Its still unconstitutional.

 

As for turning people against homosexuals, first off its a silly reason not to fight the system. Second, rather than turned against, I find myself fighting alongside homosexuals for a cause that I never thought I'd get involved in. This could UNITE us with homosexuals, under the idea that you don't fuck with our constitution.

[Guest MikeSC]

The thing is, it is not just NY & CA anymore. Mass, Arizona, and I think New Mexico have joined the party. That is 5 states in a matter of a couple weeks. How long can this simply be written off as "activist judges" I think Bush and the religious right are just trying to hurry this ridiculous ban along because they know in due time, the majority of folks will come around on this issue once they realize and EXPERIENCE the fact that at the same time that gays are getting married, ALL OF THE REST OF US, are still going on, business as usual, paying no attention and not really caring in the least.

Will a mayor in CA or NY, for the love of God, just ignore the gun laws, please?

BTW, I find it ironic that judges are refused confirmation because they are pro-life and might "ignore the law" in pursuing their agenda --- but THIS is fine and dandy for most people.

I don't see it as breaking the law.

Ironic, since it very much violates the law.

The Defense of Marriage Act is un-constitutional in my view.

But, I thought "State's rights" was the key issue here.

It needs a test case, which these recent events are providing.

These aren't "test cases". These are elected officials ignoring laws they don't agree with. This is Roy Moore --- without the widespread condemnation.

 

After all, my life wasn't even REMOTELY harmed by the 10 Commandments being up in a court room.

 

Heck, blacks can't name a single instance of their life HERE being harmed by having the Confederate flag on the State House --- or having it IMPROVED by its removal.

Doubtless California and other states will annul these marriages, and some of the couples will sue, citing the 14th Amendment. And it won't kill the rule of law.

It IS killing the rule of law. Right now, elected officials are in direct violation of state law in CA and the Courts won't even issue a stay until a decision is reached.

The cases must be heard by higher courts eventually. And they'll find the law is unconstitutional. That's why Bush & Co. are pushing for the amendment. Because they're SCREWED otherwise.

They're pushing for the Amendment because we've already seen Courts supporting completely ridiculous laws (McCain-Feingold) and there is little hope of them making the right choice.

 

I love that a few unelected, unaccountable judges' opinion is of more importance than a majority of voters.

As for following due process of law, that's not going to work in this case. If we followed due process and didn't use the courts, blacks still wouldn't be allowed to vote in the South.

This isn't the same thing whatsoever.

The Constitution prevents the majority from dominating society, which they would in this case. I don't care if disallowing gays from marrying is favored by 95% of the population. Its still unconstitutional.

Says who? What rights are withheld? Gays can still have power of attorney with their loved ones. They can still inherit property if it is listed in a will.

As for turning people against homosexuals, first off its a silly reason not to fight the system. Second, rather than turned against, I find myself fighting alongside homosexuals for a cause that I never thought I'd get involved in. This could UNITE us with homosexuals, under the idea that you don't fuck with our constitution

And I see an issue where a group who has been real tolerant of homosexuals for years seeing that their views are completely ignored, that laws they support are ignored, and that they have no recourse whatsoever.

The thing is, it is not just NY & CA anymore. Mass, Arizona, and I think New Mexico have joined the party. That is 5 states in a matter of a couple weeks. How long can this simply be written off as "activist judges" I think Bush and the religious right are just trying to hurry this ridiculous ban along because they know in due time, the majority of folks will come around on this issue once they realize and EXPERIENCE the fact that at the same time that gays are getting married, ALL OF THE REST OF US, are still going on, business as usual, paying no attention and not really caring in the least.

My life was just fine with the Confederate flag on the State House here. I never even noticed it was up there until it became an issue.

My life was fine when Roy Moore had the 10 Commandments in his courthouse.

My life was fine before Campaign Finance Reform.

 

I suppose those shouldn't have been opposed, either. After all, how many people were affected by any of the above one way or the other?

 

Fact is: You have no problem because you AGREE with this. If it was a mayor ignoring gun laws, you'd be flipping out.

 

Elected officials must follow laws --- even if they disagree with them.

 

God knows pro-life officials have had to for years now.

-=Mike

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Ironic, since it very much violates the law.

I didn't say it doesn't violate the law. That's just my view.

 

But, I thought "State's rights" was the key issue here.

The 14th Amendment takes clear presidence over states' rights.

 

It IS killing the rule of law. Right now, elected officials are in direct violation of state law in CA and the Courts won't even issue a stay until a decision is reached.

 

I don't think so. Courts don't have any less authority in criminal cases because of these actions.

 

They're pushing for the Amendment because we've already seen Courts supporting completely ridiculous laws (McCain-Feingold) and there is little hope of them making the right choice.

 

I love that a few unelected, unaccountable judges' opinion is of more importance than a majority of voters.

What IS the right choice? How does banning gay marriage not violate the 14th?

 

This isn't the same thing whatsoever.

Referring to blacks voting in the South. Yes it is. The majority of voters would've kept the African Americans from voting, and effectively did for 100 years after slavery died. That's why we have a constitution. To prevent tyranny by the majority.

 

Says who? What rights are withheld? Gays can still have power of attorney with their loved ones. They can still inherit property if it is listed in a will.

 

Separation rarely equals equality. Besides, if I told my girlfriend that we need not get marriage because a civil union is just as good, she'd hit me. A civil union is NOT the same thing.

 

And I see an issue where a group who has been real tolerant of homosexuals for years seeing that their views are completely ignored, that laws they support are ignored, and that they have no recourse whatsoever.

Real tolerant? That's why the Constitution exists. So that groups such as those are forced to integrate those they don't desire. Why? Because you are no better than them. Homosexuality is a pre-ingrained biological matter. Most homosexuals have little choice in the matter. Denying a homosexual the right to marriage is no different than denying marriage on the basis of race.

 

Fact is: You have no problem because you AGREE with this. If it was a mayor ignoring gun laws, you'd be flipping out.

 

Gun laws are not the same thing at all. The 2nd amendment uses the phrase "well regulated". Thus, gun laws are constitutional.

[Guest MikeSC]

 

It IS killing the rule of law. Right now, elected officials are in direct violation of state law in CA and the Courts won't even issue a stay until a decision is reached.

I don't think so. Courts don't have any less authority in criminal cases because of these actions.

And, let's say a mayor disagrees with all gun control laws, goes for the most liberal possible interpretation of the 2d Amendment, and allows ANYBODY to possess ANY firearms they want with no waiting period.

 

That'd be just fine, right?

 

Right?

Says who? What rights are withheld? Gays can still have power of attorney with their loved ones. They can still inherit property if it is listed in a will.

Separation rarely equals equality. Besides, if I told my girlfriend that we need not get marriage because a civil union is just as good, she'd hit me. A civil union is NOT the same thing.

Again, your logic permits polygamy, incestual marriage, etc.

 

Heck, in the old days, if you thought a law was unjust, you'd at least have to go to court to fight it. NOW, you don't even have to do that. You just have to find some politician willing to violate state law to pursue his/her agenda.

 

Heck, the NRA should give TONS of money to a candidate to insure that they overturn gun control laws.

This isn't the same thing whatsoever.

Referring to blacks voting in the South. Yes it is. The majority of voters would've kept the African Americans from voting, and effectively did for 100 years after slavery died. That's why we have a constitution. To prevent tyranny by the majority.

But tyranny of the MINORITY is OK?

 

The minority can overwhelm the majority?

 

That's fair in what way, exactly?

 

Let the homosexuals make their case. CA ALREADY had their say in this issue and said they don't want it. This is not a pressing concern. If they are unable to make their case to the public-at-large, that is the problem for the gay marriage advocates. It violates basic democratic principles for them to simply find a mayor who will say "Well, screw the law..."

Fact is: You have no problem because you AGREE with this. If it was a mayor ignoring gun laws, you'd be flipping out.

 

Gun laws are not the same thing at all. The 2nd amendment uses the phrase "well regulated". Thus, gun laws are constitutional.

Hmm, funny, you ignore "Right to possess arms will not be infringed upon" Meaning that the right is ALWAYS yours and the government WON'T get in the way. I wonder how well groups would like it if, say, the 1st Amendment was held to the same standards as the 2nd.

 

And the 14th Amendment doesn't mention sexual orientation. That should be noted.

 

Heck, laws are passed that target select groups all of the time. That is a right of the society.

 

Using the liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment, it would violate the right to privacy of convicted sexual predators to force them to disclose their status to their neighbors when they move into a neighborhood. But it's done --- because the society as a whole desire it. They feel it is right.

 

Every single group doesn't get protection.

 

"Whom you bang" is not a group that deserves protection. They tend to have their civil rights protected by any of a wide number of approved "minority" (I use quotes around minorities as women are a protected group, despite being a majority of the population) groups.

They're pushing for the Amendment because we've already seen Courts supporting completely ridiculous laws (McCain-Feingold) and there is little hope of them making the right choice.

 

I love that a few unelected, unaccountable judges' opinion is of more importance than a majority of voters.

What IS the right choice? How does banning gay marriage not violate the 14th?

Easily.

 

Sexual orientation is not an acceptable group deserving of civil rights protection.

And I see an issue where a group who has been real tolerant of homosexuals for years seeing that their views are completely ignored, that laws they support are ignored, and that they have no recourse whatsoever.

Real tolerant?

Extremely so.

That's why the Constitution exists.  So that groups such as those are forced to integrate those they don't desire.  Why?  Because you are no better than them.  Homosexuality is a pre-ingrained biological matter.

You are aware that homsexuality tends to go against the basic biological imperative of "continuation of the species", right?

 

Is being gay genetic? I don't know --- and, honestly, I don't care. I know you can't prove that it is any more than I can't prove that it isn't.

Most homosexuals have little choice in the matter.  Denying a homosexual the right to marriage is no different than denying marriage on the basis of race.

It's actually quite different.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I don't feel like reading this entire thread, so if some other clever soul posted this, forgive me.

 

http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1

[Vyce 0]

That's why we have a constitution. To prevent tyranny by the majority.

 

COMPLETELY incorrect.

 

The Constitution serves two general functions: it authorizes / grants power to the three branches of government (things such as the tax & spend power, etc.), and it protects the citizens from violations of their rights by the GOVERNMENT.

 

There MUST be state action.

 

You're completely wrong. It has NOTHING to do preventing tyranny by the majority, only tyranny by the state. That's why any redneck can discriminate against a homosexual and be COMPLETELY in the clear about it (outside of perhaps a tort action), so long as they're not agents of the state.

 

Separation rarely equals equality. Besides, if I told my girlfriend that we need not get marriage because a civil union is just as good, she'd hit me. A civil union is NOT the same thing.

 

If civil unions are established that would grant any couple who engages in them all of the same rights and privileges as are given to the institution of marriage, i.e. if those unions differ from marriage in name and name alone - then they may very well be in accordance with the 14th amendment.

 

Why? Because you are no better than them. Homosexuality is a pre-ingrained biological matter. Most homosexuals have little choice in the matter. Denying a homosexual the right to marriage is no different than denying marriage on the basis of race.

 

It's never been proven with any definitive scientific certainty that homosexuality is biological.

 

If it had been, all of this would be moot - courts would be forced to recognize homosexuals just as they would a person of a particular race, color, etc.

 

It hasn't definitively been proven that homosexuality isn't anything more than a lifestyle choice, which is why they're not afforded the same civil rights as other groups. Hell, they're not even considered a "suspect class" - thus they aren't even protected under the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

And, let's say a mayor disagrees with all gun control laws, goes for the most liberal possible interpretation of the 2d Amendment, and allows ANYBODY to possess ANY firearms they want with no waiting period.

 

That'd be just fine, right?

 

Right?

 

Of course not. But they'd face massive unrest from the people who feel that they are compromising their public safety. Hence they won't do it.

 

Again, your logic permits polygamy, incestual marriage, etc.

 

Heck, in the old days, if you thought a law was unjust, you'd at least have to go to court to fight it. NOW, you don't even have to do that. You just have to find some politician willing to violate state law to pursue his/her agenda.

 

Heck, the NRA should give TONS of money to a candidate to insure that they overturn gun control laws.

 

I believe homosexuality is a biological choice. Use that definition, and you don't have to allow polygamy or incest. Those fall under perversions.

 

But tyranny of the MINORITY is OK?

 

The minority can overwhelm the majority?

 

That's fair in what way, exactly?

 

Let the homosexuals make their case. CA ALREADY had their say in this issue and said they don't want it. This is not a pressing concern. If they are unable to make their case to the public-at-large, that is the problem for the gay marriage advocates. It violates basic democratic principles for them to simply find a mayor who will say "Well, screw the law..."

Its not tyranny of the minority either. Its our system deciding what is acceptable under the constitution, and what is not. To me, the Defense of Marriage Act violates the 14th Amendment. It might not to you. Our higher courts will soon debate the issue in any case.

 

Hmm, funny, you ignore "Right to possess arms will not be infringed upon" Meaning that the right is ALWAYS yours and the government WON'T get in the way. I wonder how well groups would like it if, say, the 1st Amendment was held to the same standards as the 2nd.

Your right to bear arms is not infringed upon. You have the right to own firearms, assuming you are of legal age, and have not violated the trust placed on you by carrying guns.

 

And the 14th Amendment doesn't mention sexual orientation. That should be noted.

It also doesn't specifically mention race.

 

Using the liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment, it would violate the right to privacy of convicted sexual predators to force them to disclose their status to their neighbors when they move into a neighborhood. But it's done --- because the society as a whole desire it. They feel it is right.

 

Every single group doesn't get protection.

 

Not applicable, because sexual predators are discriminated against because of their actions, not because of who they are.

 

You are aware that homsexuality tends to go against the basic biological imperative of "continuation of the species", right?

 

Is being gay genetic? I don't know --- and, honestly, I don't care. I know you can't prove that it is any more than I can't prove that it isn't.

 

So is being born deformed and without sexual function, but we can't discriminate in that case either.

 

COMPLETELY incorrect.

 

The Constitution serves two general functions: it authorizes / grants power to the three branches of government (things such as the tax & spend power, etc.), and it protects the citizens from violations of their rights by the GOVERNMENT.

 

There MUST be state action.

 

You're completely wrong. It has NOTHING to do preventing tyranny by the majority, only tyranny by the state. That's why any redneck can discriminate against a homosexual and be COMPLETELY in the clear about it (outside of perhaps a tort action), so long as they're not agents of the state.

 

Tyranny by the majority IS tyranny by the state. The principle is that in a straight up democracy, the majority could completely overrun the minority via popular vote. That's what the phrase refers to.

 

If civil unions are established that would grant any couple who engages in them all of the same rights and privileges as are given to the institution of marriage, i.e. if those unions differ from marriage in name and name alone - then they may very well be in accordance with the 14th amendment.

 

Doubtful. Separate but equal was struck down by the Supreme Court.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Who is the victim, or potential victim in the "Crime" of gay marriage? And don't give me any of that population bullshit. The number of gay people isn't going to change any more than the number of straight people is going to change, and last time I checked, humans breed like rats. Just ask your local high school counselor. Personally, I don't care who people fuck and marry.

[EricMM 0]

Conservatives feel that Strait up normal marriage is good for this country. The *traditional* family unit is what they want to build this country on.

 

They dislike anything that would remove any aspect of it. As it stands, Bush is heavily pushing marriage as something that stablizes one's life, which I actually agree with. But he's doing it as part of a faith-based thing. It's not just Marriage he's pushing but traditional conservative Christian Marriage.

 

So he might say (I think he would) that "Marriage" is the victim when "Marriage" is changed in any way. And that in turn hurts American values, America's future, etc.

[Guest Cerebus]

It's not just Marriage he's pushing but traditional conservative Christian Marriage.

Er...how is that different thatn tradition based Jewish mairrage, or Hindu mairrage, or Buddhist mairrage? Maybe you know more than I do, but as far as I know they're One Man-One Woman based mairrages too.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The thing is, all the political rhetoric about "American values" is bull.

[Ripper 0]

It's not just Marriage he's pushing but traditional conservative Christian Marriage.

Er...how is that different thatn tradition based Jewish mairrage, or Hindu mairrage, or Buddhist mairrage? Maybe you know more than I do, but as far as I know they're One Man-One Woman based mairrages too.

www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/gaymarriage.htm "Hinduism

 

Pre-marital chastity ranks very high on the scale of values of most Hindus. There is strong religious and social pressure to control the senses, especially before marriage. In Hindu writings there is a marked emphasis on self-control with the sublimation of sexual urges before a person reaches the stage of the householder. There are punishments for transgressions.

 

The Hindu literary sources are remarkably silent on homosexuality but from traditional attitudes towards chastity and sex it follows that homosexuality at any stage of life is out of line with the standard norms and values of the varnashramadharma system. In particular, not to marry and produce children could be seen as a violation of dharma ("righteousness").

Very few Hindus remain unmarried. Homosexuality is not unknown but it is a taboo topic. The reaction to AIDS in India has been even stronger pressure to remain chaste.

 

Buddhism

 

Traditional Buddhism identifies only two types of sexuality: that of celibate monks and nuns and that of married householders engaged in normal (heterosexual) family life. For this reason homosexual relationships may be seen as unwise or unnatural. Homosexual activity would seem to most Buddhists to break the third precept of Buddhism - refraining from the misuse of the senses. They certainly see any uncontrolled desire as potentially destructive and unwholesome and Buddhism has always taught that self-control and chastity are a high and wholesome path. Sexual misconduct is a cause for expulsion from the monastic communities.

 

But Buddhists believe that there are no moral absolutes and that "right action" has to be worked out in whatever time, place and situation people find themselves.

 

The spiritual leader of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama, has categorised homosexual acts as "sexual misconduct" which is "something that may be considered improper in terms of organs, time, and place; when sexual relations involve inappropriate parts of the body, or when they occur at an unsuitable time or place."

 

Sikhism

 

Maintenance of family honour is a dominant concern in Sikhism and sexual misconduct brings shame on a family. Sexual activity is restricted to its responsible use within marriage. This is consistent with the reference to lust in the Sikh scriptures (the Guru Granth Sahib) where it is cited as one of the five evil passions.

 

Sikhs have not written on the subject of homosexuality. Friendships in South Asian communities between members of the same sex are strong and in fact it is regarded as right and natural that only those of the same sex hold hands or embrace in public. But it would be totally incorrect for a Westerner to assume that physical contact between members of the same sex was indicative of any homosexual tendency.

 

Sikhs expect every man and woman to marry and have children. For a woman there is no respected or desirable alternative to the role of wife and mother. Sexual activity for both sexes must be confined to members of the opposite sex and within marriage.

 

According to Sikh belief, union with God is not possible while one is at the mercy of a wayward impulse. Any surrender to instincts incompatible with conjugal fidelity or with the proper role of men and women as marriage partners would be condemned.

 

Judaism

 

Marriage is considered by the rabbis to be the ideal state for any man and marriage is intended to imitate the relationship between Adam and Eve - one man and one woman - and for the fulfilment of the duty to have children. Under the Jewish system any sex outside of marriage is, strictly speaking, impossible to achieve since having sex is one of the three stages of marriage. By having sex with a partner one has already embarked on the marriage process.

 

There appears to be nothing in Jewish sources which recognises that people may be homosexual, only that they indulge in homosexual practices. The most influential text is found in the Torah (Leviticus 19:12), "You shall not lie with men as with women; it is an abomination", and in Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; and they shall certainly be put to death."

The Talmud, which was written over a period of a thousand years and completed in the sixth century, considers whether or not two men should be alone together but decides that it is acceptable because "Jews do not behave in such a way". Interestingly, by the sixteenth century and the writing of the Shulkhan Arukh, Rabbi Joseph Caro advises that, owing to current standards of behaviour amongst some people, it would be wise for two men not to be alone together.

 

Jeffrey Satinover, himself a Jew, notes:

"On the basis of the Pentateuch, the Talmud treats all sexual activity outside of marital relations, including masturbation, unequivocally as sins, though it makes careful distinctions concerning their varying severity. Lesbianism, for example is treated as a less severe sin than male homosexuality; the various Talmudic discussions concerning lesbianism view it as less of a threat to family formation and stability than the always potentially rogue male sexuality."

 

"Thus Rabbinic discussions of homosexuality begin with the fact of its sinfulness and moral unacceptability but quickly make two important points. First, as in all matters pertaining to human failings, a strict distinction must be maintained between the sin and the person...

Second, the Rabbinic discussions make a refined distinction as to the degree of culpability that individuals bear for their homosexual behaviour, depending on the situation."

 

Islam

 

Excess in sexual relations is one of the root vices identified by Islam. Sexual intercourse is the ultimate physical union between a man and a woman to express their love and commitment to each other. The result of sexual intercourse, procreation, is the contribution which human beings make towards the continuation of God's creation.

 

Islam prohibits sex outside marriage. Marriage - which can only be between a man and a woman - is the place within which both the emotional and creative power of sexual intercourse can be controlled. Islam holds that when there is excess or deficiency in the desire for sexual intercourse an imbalance can occur in the personality. Excess overpowers reason and leads to adultery, fornication and other mortal sins.

 

Islam forbids homosexual and lesbian relations. Islam views such relations as unnatural and a deviation from the norm. Specific mention is made of its practice in the Quran where Lot warns against the practice of homosexuality: "What! Of all creatures, do you approach males and leave the spouses whom your Lord has created for you? Indeed, you are people transgressing [all limits]" (Quran 26: 165-6) and "Do you commit adultery as no people in creation [ever] committed before you? For you practise your lusts on men in preference to women: You are indeed a people transgressing beyond limits." (Quran 7:84).

 

Sodomy is considered to be an act against one's natural disposition ('asl-al-fitra) because it is considered to be sex merely to satisfy one's passion and performed with part of the body for which sexual intercourse was not created. It also includes anal sex with one's wife. All Muslim jurists agree that sodomy is a sexual offence though they differ as to its appropriate punishment."

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Bush is heavily pushing marriage as something that stablizes one's life, which I actually agree with

 

Then why do half of them end in divorce?

 

Bull indeed. There's been divorces, gays, drugs, dissention, etc. eroding at the family since time eternal. Thumbtacking amendments to a perfectly good constitution will NOT do anything to change this fact. Some folks will remain in the traditional family unit...some won't. I hate this sort of all or nothing partisanship about how this country should be run.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And, let's say a mayor disagrees with all gun control laws, goes for the most liberal possible interpretation of the 2d Amendment, and allows ANYBODY to possess ANY firearms they want with no waiting period.

 

That'd be just fine, right?

 

Right?

I'm not exactly sure what functions a city has in regards to gun registration and licensing. That's more a state thing, if I remember right.

 

Again, your logic permits polygamy, incestual marriage, etc.

 

And it's MY problem you want these things outlawed?

 

And you STILL have no good answer to the question I keep asking: How is gay marraige going to open the door to these things that can't be opened with the way things already are?

 

Sexual orientation is not an acceptable group deserving of civil rights protection.

 

Gee, sir, I'm sorry they're not "acceptable" to you.

 

Is being gay genetic? I don't know --- and, honestly, I don't care. I know you can't prove that it is any more than I can't prove that it isn't.

 

You know those animals who do it with the animals of the same sex? Yeah. They made a lifestyle choice. That's why if you look in their nest you find frilly tablecloths, well-aligned curtains, and "Queer Eye" on the TV set.

[Firestarter 0]

I'm not exactly sure what functions a city has in regards to gun registration and licensing. That's more a state thing, if I remember right.

...

 

So was gay marriage.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Culture war being reshaped

Conservatives lower expectations

America is stumbling headlong into a new political season bitterly divided -- once again -- by the updated version of "culture wars" over such issues as same-sex unions, abortion, religion and depictions of sex and violence in popular culture.

 

President Bush, with his call Tuesday for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, threw himself into the front lines, standing alongside those who insist they can turn back the tide of change.

 

Yet in a subtle if critical way, the terms of engagement have changed sharply from the bitter clashes of a decade ago. Even many who embrace so- called traditional values admit that the culture wars have been kept alive only because, in many instances, conservatives have lowered their expectations significantly. Based on the standards of even five years ago, the war would seem to be over.

 

The terms of the cultural battles for the coming presidential election have shifted -- in many instances dramatically -- but the intensity has not. For all the cultural victories that Democrats and progressives believe they have won, there could still be a harsh reaction from mainstream voters, who tend to respond differently to these issues when they are in a voting booth than when they are on their couches holding a remote control.

 

"Politics lags behind popular culture, and that is really true now," said John Zogby, head of Zogby International, an independent polling organization. "People accept things in popular entertainment that they do not when it comes to politics. The extremists drive this debate, but it is important for a lot of voters."

 

"Culture wars" became a catchphrase over the past two decades for the key social issues dividing the right and the left: abortion, gay rights, the role of religion in secular society, gender equality, whether education should be built around the Judeo-Christian tradition or multiculturalism, and ways of controlling the content of popular culture.

 

Zogby said roughly 20 percent of voters ardently support conservative views on these issues, and another 20 percent supportmore liberal views, but that the large middle ground is tending to shrink because of the shrill, polarized debate that frames the issues in black-and-white terms.

 

Zogby said some elements of the battle are "mind-boggling, but telling."

 

"Here we are on the verge of cloning humans," he said, "and on the other hand, we're still debating whether we should be teaching kids about evolution."

 

What most conservatives do concede is that the "wars" being fought are far different now. Activists are being forced to narrow their targets, while giving up entirely on some issues.

 

"As far as adults are concerned, there is no culture war anymore," said David Horowitz, a conservative commentator and director of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. "You get to see anything you want anytime. It's all there. I mean, who talks about the V-chip anymore?"

 

Yet, he added, "There is an argument conservatives can make now, and it is about process. That's the real battle. We just want to make sure that liberals don't destroy the institutions that mediate these cultural conflicts. "

 

He said that, for instance, the focus would be on stopping Democratic filibusters over Bush's judicial nominees and preventing local officials such as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom from taking extralegal steps to push unwanted changes.

 

Even some of those cheered by recent events concede their success is linked to the fact that they have set their sights lower.

 

Conservative activist William Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, says he believes Bush's proposal for a constitutional amendment is a "cultural tipping point" that will restore a "culture of restraint and decency."

 

The ban will not prevent the acceptance of gay culture, he acknowledges, nor will it prevent same-sex civil unions, which he now supports. What it will do, he says, is prevent those couples from actually saying they are married, even if they enjoy virtually the same rights.

 

"I don't like all-or-nothing approaches anymore," Donohue said.

 

Jim Backlin, director of legislative affairs for the Christian Coalition, one of the staunchest conservative combatants, insisted he was not willing to wave the white flag. He said he was cheered by Bush's proposed constitutional amendment and by the recent outcry over Janet Jackson's baring her pierced breast during the halftime show at the Super Bowl.

 

Still, he too was measured about his goals.

 

"We reject both gay marriages and civil unions," said Backlin. "They are wrong. But, realistically, we gave up on civil unions. We know that we would lose that. It's not worth fighting over. But there are major battles going on. "

 

He gave as examples judicial nominations and the legality of what conservatives call partial-birth abortion.

 

Patrick Guerriero is the executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay Republicans that has been fighting from within the party to make it more tolerant. He says he takes the latest battle over same-sex unions very seriously -- not because he believes gay couples will lose their rights, but because progress might be slowed by too much success too fast.

 

"The far right knows what we know: The fighting over gay equality is almost over," said Guerriero. "This is the great last battle."

 

Perhaps the strongest rallying cry from the right came in 1992, when Patrick Buchanan addressed the Republican National Convention in Houston and declared, "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself."

 

Things did not turn out that way. In some respects, the trend toward greater tolerance has turned into a floodtide.

 

Just last year, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a Texas law banning consensual sex in private between same-sex couples was unconstitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia responded by angrily charging that the court had "taken sides in the culture war" and that it had "largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda." He predicted there would be "a massive disruption of the current social order" and that same-sex marriage would follow in short order.

 

He was right.

 

In music, a vigorous assault against albums with violent or graphically sexual lyrics resulted in a modest system of warning labels, nothing more. Efforts to prevent minors from renting violent video games have failed in the courts; there is just a voluntary rating system.

 

The V-chip, which was supposed to give adults the ability to filter out inappropriate television programs for children, is almost completely unused. Some five years after manufacturers were forced to install the chip in new television sets, there is an effort only now to force the networks to run commercials instructing parents how to use them.

 

"The V-chip debate made an assumption that wasn't true -- that people would really take action to restrict content in their own homes," said Robert Thompson, director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University. "What people say and what people do are completely different."

 

No one would argue that the cultural landscape hasn't changed quickly -- and dramatically.

 

Advertising Age magazine recently ran an article titled, "The Porno- ization of American Media and Marketing," describing the large number of porn stars being embraced enthusiastically in mainstream media.

 

And the hugely successful television show, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," in which five openly gay men instruct straight men on how to improve their romantic prowess, has now produced a best-selling book, a popular CD and successful product endorsements. Pier 1 and American Express are using "Queer Eye" stars for endorsements.

 

Gender equality, meanwhile, is no longer a flashpoint issue. Even though the effort to pass the Equal Rights Amendment failed, women have since won rights the amendment would have guaranteed, such as prohibitions against discrimination in the workplace.

 

And although the Janet Jackson Super Bowl escapade created a backlash, it is uncertain how long it will last. MTV, which produced the Janet Jackson halftime show, vowed afterward to clean up its broadcasts, removing a sexually explicit rock video by Britney Spears, called "Toxic," during the day, when young people might be watching. A few days later, it was back.

 

Clear Channel, the largest radio station owner in the country, suddenly announced that it was dropping Howard Stern's show from six stations, a fraction of those that air it overall. John Hogan, Clear Channel's president, said he hoped the step would "serve as a 'shot across the bow' of the industry, putting us all on notice that Congress and the FCC are serious about cleaning up the airwaves."

 

Yet Howard Stern's show still runs on the E! Network most evenings, showing the bared breasts and other sexual hijinks only hinted at on radio.

 

As the days count down to Nov. 2, there's plenty of room for the fight to continue because, experts say, the true believers on either side are as passionate as they have ever been.

 

"For many people on the right, this is going to be an Armageddon election, " said Zogby, the pollster. "Very few people are undecided. If anything, the intensity is up."

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...NGIM5A56225.DTL

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm not exactly sure what functions a city has in regards to gun registration and licensing. That's more a state thing, if I remember right.

...

 

So was gay marriage.

A city does issue marriage licenses, which is how this whole thing got started.

[Guest Cerebus]

Ripper,

 

Fair enough (that was actually a pretty interesting read). But that was all about homosexuality. The issue here is not homosexuality per se (I don't think there is anyone here who thinks gay and lesbians are morally corrupt and deserve to be "re-educated") but whether or not they should get married. Nothing on there talked about what the different religions felt if mairrage should be or, rather, allowed to be something other than One Man-One Woman.

[Guest hunger4unger]

If homosexuals or lesbians want to get married then so be it. They are good enough to be firefighters, to fight for the US overseas in the armed forces, pay their taxes...what's really the big deal?

[Guest Cerebus]

to fight for the US overseas in the armed forces

Wrong. But I don't feel its worth the trouble to correct an idiot like you.

[Guest hunger4unger]

to fight for the US overseas in the armed forces

Wrong. But I don't feel its worth the trouble to correct an idiot like you.

Do you seriously believe that there are no gay men and women in the army? Obviously they won't be "out" to their colleagues but there will be THOUSANDS.

 

Oh and no need to flame son.

[Guest MikeSC]

And, let's say a mayor disagrees with all gun control laws, goes for the most liberal possible interpretation of the 2d Amendment, and allows ANYBODY to possess ANY firearms they want with no waiting period.

 

That'd be just fine, right?

 

Right?

I'm not exactly sure what functions a city has in regards to gun registration and licensing. That's more a state thing, if I remember right.

States, if memory serves, handle marriage licenses as well. It isn't really putting a damper on the circus in SF.

Again, your logic permits polygamy, incestual marriage, etc.

And it's MY problem you want these things outlawed?

Any rational, thinking person would.

And you STILL have no good answer to the question I keep asking: How is gay marraige going to open the door to these things that can't be opened with the way things already are?

The groups who support them NOW have a precedent. All they have to say is: "Well, homosexual marriage is now OK. Why isn't (fill in the blank)?"

Sexual orientation is not an acceptable group deserving of civil rights protection.

Gee, sir, I'm sorry they're not "acceptable" to you.

Whom you bang is the least important part of one's personality.

Is being gay genetic? I don't know --- and, honestly, I don't care. I know you can't prove that it is any more than I can't prove that it isn't.

You know those animals who do it with the animals of the same sex? Yeah. They made a lifestyle choice. That's why if you look in their nest you find frilly tablecloths, well-aligned curtains, and "Queer Eye" on the TV set.

And I can point out it violates the basic biological imperative of propagation of the species.

 

Is it proof that being gay is a choice? Nope. Not even close. Again, I do not know, cannot prove, and do not care enough to try and prove it.

 

You have anecdotes. I have basic logic.

 

Neither of us have, you know, actual evidence.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush is heavily pushing marriage as something that stablizes one's life, which I actually agree with

 

Then why do half of them end in divorce?

 

Bull indeed. There's been divorces, gays, drugs, dissention, etc. eroding at the family since time eternal. Thumbtacking amendments to a perfectly good constitution will NOT do anything to change this fact. Some folks will remain in the traditional family unit...some won't. I hate this sort of all or nothing partisanship about how this country should be run.

I love this. The left has had a decades-long assault on any traditional values and marriage (no fault divorce wasn't a conservative notion) that has managed to completely erode away the institution of marriage --- and now they want to FURTHER erode it by mentioning that marriage isn't exactly sacrosanct today. So, they CAUSE the problem and then want to USE the problem their ideas (free love wasn't a conservativer notion) to justify FURTHER eroding marriage?

 

This would be like hearing Hitler complain that there aren't any good kosher delis in Germany during the 30's.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

and that's enough to base a constitutional amendment on?

[Guest Cerebus]

to fight for the US overseas in the armed forces

Wrong. But I don't feel its worth the trouble to correct an idiot like you.

Do you seriously believe that there are no gay men and women in the army? Obviously they won't be "out" to their colleagues but there will be THOUSANDS.

 

Oh and no need to flame son.

I was in the Navy, and I seriously doubt there are even a thousand gay men and women in the military (not just the Army which is ONE branch of the United States military) due to the monumentally stupid "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. That's the last I'm going to say about the subject, this thread is a clusterfuck already without getting into the subject of gays in the military.

[EricMM 0]

AoO of COURSE I feel that a broken marriage is a tragedy. It's not like I'm against divorce either.

 

But monogomy is generally good for families, right?

 

And Marriage is a basic vow of monogomy.

 

I see nothing wrong with that...

[EricMM 0]

Oh my god Mike, you conservatives are SOOO quick to judge people as "against traditional values."

 

But what are we against? We're not against marriage, we're trying to get MORE people married.

 

I swear what traditional values will a strait couple lose if gay people get married?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Oh, I don't hate marriage or anything, I just happen to think it can be carried out well enough by two loving people regardless of their gender.

 

Personally, I've thought this should be a states issue from day one, since who someone fucks is a totally trivial piece of information. This isn't defiling the gene pool like incest, or destroying normal relationships with polygamy, it's two unrelated people in love wanting to get hitched.

 

Out of fifty states, at least one of the more liberal ones would vote "Yes" on gay marriage, thus forcing said couples to possibly undergo an AGONIZING car ride to profess their unrequited love before god and government. Couples are happy, partisan political battles about sexuality are sent to the lower echelons of government where they can be tolerated, and best of all, the constitution stays the same.

 

*throws rice*