It has been a good, but busy weekend. Doug had worked very late Wednesday and Thursday. We had a friend, Tim, stay with us this weekend and we were hoping to drive to San Francisco Friday night to meet him, but Doug was whipped. He just came home, ate dinner and went right to sleep. He slept until about 10 pm when Tim arrived at our place. Tim has his own blog called Balancing Boyfriends. We met Tim and his husband Tony at a bar in the Castro called Badlands. We hit it off right away. At dinner a few days later Tim told me that he blogs. I had no clue what that word even meant, so I can blame my obsession on blogging and reading blogs all on Tim!
Anyway, on Saturday we drove south an hour to Santa Cruz. We had an appt. with an accountant there and while Doug was taking care of that, Tim and I wandered around the downtown area. I can’t wait to go back. It was fun. We then had lunch and drove back to quickly change and then Doug and I drove off to San Francisco for a surprise birthday party for our good friend Brian. Tim had a function to go to in Tiburan. We then went out to dinner with our friends Michael and Thierry. After that Doug and I met up with Tim at Badlands.
Today has been very slow. We don’t drink (or I should say it is extremely rare that we drink alcohol) so I can’t blame being tired today on that. But the weather here has been great, so I can’t complain about having a lazy Sunday brunch with Tim before he flew back to Chicago and sitting outside reading in the yard.
I did check out some of my usual blogs. One, which I left a number of comments at, is called TalkWisdom. I’ve written about the blog and Christine before, so I won’t bore you with all the details now. She has started up yet another blog called Protect Biblical Marriage. I hope that I was able to leave the first comment there:
Why should your religion, which is clearly a choice, be forced on people who don’t believe the same thing as you? Do you think we live in a religious police state? I wonder how you would feel if another major religion like Buddhism was able to gather enough signatures to make meat-eating unconstitutional? Would you be persecuted by that? Or would you accept the will of the people? I already know the answer.
It seems to me that if people support this, they better be prepared to see similar ballot issues that will force other beliefs on the rest of the population.
Anyway, I suggest that people leave comments at this new blog. We know what side they are on. It is hard for me to understand their position–or at least understand why they think it is o.k. in this country to force their religious beliefs on the rest of us. What they seem to want is only for their own religious beliefs to be recognized and no one else’s. God forbid that someone of the Jewish, or Islamic faith get too much control in this country! 🙂
Kevin's Space 
Well, the Bible doesn\’t really define marriage as between a man and a woman. It is Adam who defines it as being between him and the only other human being who was around at the time–cf Genesis 2:23-24 (who happened to be HIMSELF, really…or a "clone" of himself with some chromosomal juggling thrown in—I mean, if the story is to be stated accurately—which Christians never do.
I should add that I think it would be a waste of time trying to leave a comment at Christine\’s blog since "Comment Protection" has been enabled. Clearly she only intends to approve those messages that agree with her.
Hey Cass,
Yes, they don\’t seem to think about the whole Adam\’s rib thing. I mean–are they marrying their own flesh and blood? I think I made a post a while ago titled "More Ribs, Anyone" that talked about polygamy in their blessed book…
About the comment protection–lots of blogs do that. I guess it keeps the spam out, as well as any comment they don\’t like. But I find that I have to copy my comment and if it doesn\’t get posted, then I will post it here and titled it Hypocrisy, or something like that! 🙂
I went on to blog about this in more detail
Oh, my blog entry is entitles "The Bible Has Defined Marriage—Hogwash and Codswallop, My Friends".
Oh Kevin! I\’m going to invite Christine and her gang to my wedding in MA! That should be lovely. She can bring her picket signs and "God Hates Fags" t-shirts. Should be a hoot! Hey, you two wanna come to our wedding? Would love to finally meet my gay warrior! 🙂
Hey Deb!
I wish that we could come to your wedding! How is the planning going? Doug and I are finally getting back into our normal routine, but then we leave on Thursday for Idaho, so we\’re getting ready for that.
Christines blog is absolutely …..well lets not got there I was told I have to be nice this week 😦 I still would like to get them to explain to me how you and Doug getting married ends up destroying marriage. Is it just because they think there is some diabolical scheme in which hetrosexual married couples will suddenly want to get divorced and marry parties of the same gender? 49% of all marriages are ending up in divorce now with remarriage happening which by the way, is under biblical terms committing adultery no if ands or buts about it, its there in black and white however, Christine and people like her seem to over look or just turn a blind eye to that little biblical fact. By their silence they are condoning it and by their silence it is they who have allowed the destruction of marriage as they see it biblicaly.
Now, if they are serious about upholding biblical definitions and traditions of marriage as they call them where is their movement to pass ammendments and ban divorce. Label her the hypocrite she is and watch her squeal like a stuck hog. I\’m sure she would say she does not condone it to which we must ask her then, why aren\’t you pushing and passing laws to stop it? Actions after all speak louder than words.
Deb: congrats on your upcoming wedding the best to you both.
Waves at Cass, love your site Cass.
Ok enough rambelings from a old Texas rancher keep your feet in the stirrups and ride with the wind at your back.
(waves at Justin). You are right about the "adultery" what most Christians fail to realize is that while the Bible, or the Law, or God, or whatever DOES permit divorce you can\’t marry anyone else until your former spouse is dead—which sounds like God is tempting people into murder…must be boring not having anything to do but sit around on your golden throne for all eternity just being adored…guess He has to make up His OWN fun.
Thanks, Justin. That\’s the thing that gets me, is that they\’re mostly hypocrites. Mark, look at Dani, the one of many fundies who criticized me for being gay, yet she was a lesbian back in her day. But now she is healed because she has a husband, kids and a compound. (Or cult.) Living your life and being happy is what they absolutely detest. Keep spreading your message!
If anyone would like to have a civilized discussion on the issue, I am more than willing. A quick note to Cassandra: I\’ve never known Christine to use comment protection to block a comment unless it was blasphemous or obscene. Deb on the other had is very skilled at eliminating comments that she doesn\’t agree with. So it goes…
Well, I attempted to post and the "comment protection tag" went up so I didn\’t bother to leave one. I am certain that anything in support of "same sex marriage" would qualify as obscene in her mind.
And what would the discussion with you be about? Either ALL Americans are entitled to the same rights and privileges or they are not. I can remember (I\’m totally OLD< ya dig) I can remember when the same group was opposed to inter-racial unions for equally Biblical Reasons.
Prejudice is prejudice—covering it in scriptural quotations won\’t change that.
I probably meet the criteria for "blasphemous" too— 🙂
Oh, HEY! Felicitations on your future nuptials, Deb
"Either ALL Americans are entitled to the same rights and privileges or they are not."
False statement. Rights are often dependent on meeting age requirements, such as for voting. Privileges, not even close. Not all Americans can drive, serve in the military, own weapons (even though the Constitution lists that as a right), and other such things.
I agree that prejudice is prejudice. Covering it in Biblical scriptures won\’t change that. These days however I see most prejudice covered in a bunch of PC B.S.
Gary
Young man,
Once again you are confused. Listen, grasshopper, and I shall explain. The Bible is not the Law of the Land…nor SHOULD it ever be. Not everyone believes in your particular divinity. But no one (and, most certainly not ME) would deny YOUR right to believe whatever your fear of death or life or the future or whatever it might be REQUIRES you to believe. But you don\’t have the right to demand that others should believe as you do or live their lives according to YOUR definitions of right and wrong.
The subject under discussion is same sex marriage (please try to stay focused, if you can). Two consenting adults who love each other and wish to spend the rest of their lives together should not be barred from marriage.
Marriage has nothing to do with children or God or anything else the objectors to SSM try to drag in as an argument.
PARENTHOOD has to do with children and not all married couples produce offspring anymore that all couples who produce offspring marry.
As for God—He is—irrelevant.
I really believe you are the one confused. I understand the Bible is not the law of the land. The laws are passed through the legislature. As mentioned in the other blog, there is no representative law supporting gay marriage. I firmly agree that we should not try to institute a Biblical government. People have tried and really messed it up. However, enacting laws based on the orders of unelected judges will end up at least as badly.
Two consenting adults who love each other have every right to spend the rest of their lives together. But if they want "we the people" to recognize and subsidize their union, they need to do the hard work and convince people to adjust the law properly.
Gary
Well, again, as I said in the other blog—the attempt is to short-circuit the bigotry of those with closed minds and closed hearts. Much as had to be done in the Civil Rights Movement…the "majority" was never clearly in favor of desegregation, either. Yet it was the RIGHT thing to do. My contention is that same-sex marriage falls in the same category.
Cassandra,Apples and oranges on the subject of desegregation. It was quite easy to demonstrate that harm was being done to citizens by denying them an education, which they were paying for in the form of various school taxes. There were also illegal operations going on to prevent them from gaining relief. That, it had already been established by law and custom that "public" schools were just that, and institution set up for all children. Again, no history to support the same argument for gay marriage.I guess one of the differences between us is that I would never condone violating your right to due process to gain something I wanted. Not that you are alone. That seems to be a common view among liberals. As Hawkeye once said on MASH: "Good guys can do anything rotten."
Gary,
I am already having my rights violkated by being forced to subsidize an institution the benefits of which I am barred from enjoying. How is this fair? Why should MY tax dollars go to subsidize tax breaks for heterosexual married couples? Harm IS being done to me every time some yahoo says homosexuality is immoral,
I consider myself to be quite a moral person and that hurts me when people say things like that. How is it immoral? By what definition? WHO decides and by what process of reasoning?
Is it just because it is different from others? Or is there something else behind this treatment? I say SET MY PEOPLE FREE!!!
or watch out for locusts 🙂
Cleaning up last questions:"I
am already having my rights violkated by being forced to subsidize an
institution the benefits of which I am barred from enjoying. "It is not a violation of your rights. Those subsidies were passed by legislation through legally and Constitutionally sound means. It is "fair" in the same way that it is fair that people with no children pay taxes for schools and taxes to support fire departments when they never use them. By consent of the governed, you are assumed to be benefiting from the stability and increased productivity that a stable society provides."Harm IS being done to me every time some yahoo says homosexuality is immoral."In much the same way that you harm people by categorizing them. About the only solution is to move to someplace without free speech. It\’s being degraded rapidly enough. I would hate to see it go faster."By what definition? WHO decides and by what process of reasoning?"You already know the answers to those questions. You are free to disagree of course. Again, a communist dictatorship might be more to your taste. They place no value on religious tradition at all. "Is it just because it is different from others? Or is there something else behind this treatment? I say SET MY PEOPLE FREE!!!"You are quite free. We are all different, and rhetoric to the contrary, we are all treated differently. Make your case in the proper channels and win, and I will respect that. If not, then you are really no different than the people you decry.
Hi everyone,
I\’ve been away and without internet connection, or I would have jumped in on this right away…
Gary, I don\’t know what you mean by \’unelected judges\’ but I always hear this from someone who doesn\’t agree with the democratic process. Our court system is part of the democratic process. These so-called unelected judges are put there to control the majority. I assume you are referring to the Republican led California state judges who have given the glbt community more civil rights than some wanted. That is what the judicial system is for. Plain and simple.
And I agree with Cass. The argument against same sex marriage is based on religious beliefs. Just because you might believe in a god and believe that Adam came from the rib of Eve doesn\’t mean I have to believe it or be forced to live under those beliefs.
Thought Gary had gone away—well, let\’s just clear this up once and for all. As the 15th Chapter of Acts and the teaching of Jesus clearly explain—he did not intend for the Laws that were given to the Chosen People back at Sinai to ever apply to Christians. It was James (Jesus\’ brother and heir-apparent to the role of Messiah—so HE thought) who insisted on this even though it was in clear disagreement with what Simon Peter, Saul Paul, and Barnabas had all erxperienced as revelation.
If they wish to bind themselves to the Law (which remains a viable connection between the decendants of the Israelites and Yahweh until all things pass away—which is what Jesus actually was SAYING if you read it in the original Aramaic–NOt that it would apply to EVERYONE Jew or not for all time as the Preachers seem to interpret it) you CAN. But the Law says that if you sin in even the smallest respect you fall short of God\’s standard fo perfection—you are as guilty as if you had broken every commandment in the book which is a clear warning (one would think) to Christians who claim to have been saved by GRACE and who have received the mercy of the New Covenent Jesus was bringing not to condemn or bind down others with the rules of the OLD one. Those that do so—well—try reading Matthew Chapter 7. Those who apply the law to others themselves come under the full weight of the law and Romans 3:19-21 reinforces that. A Christian has a choice—bind yourself (and others) down under the old law and attain salvation or everlasting damnation by your deeds—I\’ll give you three guesses where you will wind up—or accept the grace "unmerited favor" and the peace "cessation of againstness" from God through his Son Jesus who died to get it to you.
THAT was the original message of the Godspell—or Good News—you see what has happened since humans got their hands on it.
No, Gary, I am NOT a Christian in the modern sense of the word—because I do not follow the teachings of men who have done their best to corrupt his message for reasons of their own—what reasons—ever look and see how well some of these televangelists live? Or the popes before them? THAT\’S why. Jesus died to set men free from all that—and they turned around and chained themselves right back up again.
No, Gary..I am no Christian
But don\’t make the mistake of thinking I don\’t know Christ.
Cass
Hi Kevin,I don\’t know where you learned civics, but they had a great sense of humor. The judiciary is to ensure that the government (as in legislature and executive branches) does not infringe on the rights of the people. The legislature is the provider of rights under our Constitution, with the exception of the ones "endowed by our Creator." If you don\’t believe it, take a look at the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Those rights not specifically given to the government are reserved to the states and the people. And how do the people exert their rights? Through elected representatives. You might try reading a bit of history on the legal system and the judiciary. They were never empowered to grant rights. They were only there to interpret the existing laws to ensure that enumerated rights were not denied. The system you are describing is basically a judicial dictatorship. Very bad that. If judges could give rights, there would be no need for an amendment process to the Constitution. Judges simply could have assigned women the right to vote, slaves freedom, etc. The reason they did not is that IT IS NOT THEIR JOB. Now, you may agree that the argument against same sex marriage is based on religious beliefs, but that in no way affects the legal process that has to be observed to change a government accepted institution. Also, as the Supreme Court has ruled in the past, there is no problem with law based on religious teaching provided it serves a legitimate secular purpose. Also, I am at a loss as to why you keep using the term "forced." Please tell me what you are being "forced" to do that has not been commonly accepted for hundreds of years. Certainly no one is forcing you to believe anything. If that were the case, I would be on your side. It simply is not. I am also amazed at the fact that you imply that I am the one who does not like to work within the democratic process. All I have been pushing is the democratic process as outlined in the Constitution. On the other hand, Cassandra has stated that she would gladly violate that process and the rights of others to get what she wants. Wouldn\’t you agree that you have a bit of an off standard there?Hi Cassandra,By all means, let\’s clear this up: The section you reference is about law requirements. Very true. The items listed that the gentiles still need to be mindful of are idol worship, drinking of blood, strangled animals, and sexual impurity. The laws on sexual impurity include incest, bestiality, and homosexuality. Christ was also very specific about the law, in that he did not come to destroy it or the prophets, but upheld that all of it will stand until it\’s purpose was accomplished. Jesus satisfied the sacrificial requirement for sin, but that did nothing to change the character of the acts themselves. If we took what you were saying as "the Gospel" that would mean there was no problem with theft, murder, adultery, etc. This seems to leave a rather large hole in your case, considering I don\’t see many people objecting to those on religious grounds. Basically, you go back to your emotional argument "It is a right because I say it is (and besides, you\’re a bigot!)I take it that you have either not read or do not remember the part of my comments where I stipulated that everyone was equally guilty under God\’s law. In the past, I have lied. Does that mean I should not speak against lying? I have stolen. Should I support thieves and say that laws against theft should be struck down?You are speaking irrationally when you claim that I or anyone else in this discussion is trying to force you to live under Mosaic law. If that were the case, I would be calling for the death penalty (though that certainly seems to be a popular remedy in certain middle-eastern countries). I am not calling for any penalties at all. I am simply saying that I do not wish to ratify your choice. You cautioned me against generalizing how gay people behave based on the actions of a few. It seems to me that you are very good at stereotyping Christians on the actions of a few. A few examples include things like millions of presents delivered to impoverished children around world each year, charitable organizations fighting hunger, first disaster response for natural disasters, youth and children\’s community programs, setting up hospitals and schools, etc. For their trouble, more Christians were martyred in the 20th century than in all the centuries leading up to that. I can look up a lot of books about atheists who turn to Christ and set out to do wonderful things for people. I can find books about Christians that renounce and become atheists. Generally, they spend their time organizing against other Christians. I can in no way judge what kind of relationship you may or may not have with Christ. It is unique of those I\’ve encountered, to say the least. Christ was all about bringing glory to God. All that he did, the feeding, the healing, everything, was about bringing back glory to God. All I hear from you is "It should be this way because I said so." Christ emphasized a servant attitude. You seem very anxious to rule over people. He also said that love for one another would mark his disciples. I haven\’t observed much of that in you. Finally, you show the same kind of liberal arrogance towards Christians that I have seen a number of times. It\’s the arrogance that says "They are all wrong. It doesn\’t matter that they spend years in study or prayer or anything else. I have the true answer. All of those "Christians" are messing it up." Somehow, I don\’t think God appointed you the mantle of Solomon or Christ.
Actually (as Paul points out) the Law is for servants…but we are heirs and joint-heirs with Christ. All things are lawful for us. It is not possible for us to desire any wrong thing. Paul says all this not me.
As I believe I already explained there was a struggle between two schools of interpretation going on of which we get but a glimpse in Acts. And rather than create a division that might destroy this fledgeling church Paul and the others agreed to compromise on some points. That does not make the compromise binding in the eyes of God—it was only a HUMAN compromise, Remember the kind of society we are dealing with. James had a lot of support among the Jewish Christians because of his blood-kinship with Jesus. (And, yes, he was the brother of Jesus—I know Christians try to interpret the word "brother" as meaning some OTHER kind of relationship because of their traditions but brother he was) and, being so, he was seen as the natural leader to many. So…compromise.
Which is why one only get "glimpses" of Christ\’s true message in the books that the Church (humans again) have chosen to allow us to see. Their so-called "authorized versions" the ones humans decided were "divinely inspired" at the Council of Nicaea and so on. But those weren\’t the only books.
The Nag Hammadi finds have much to teach the true seeker….try the "Religious Salad Bar" folder on my skydrive for the audip talks on the Gnostic Point of View—also the texts there—you will find some interesting things.
If it so be that the Light of God is what you truely seek.
(I call it the Salad Bar because, like a salad bar, people are free to take what they want and leave the rest).
IF, on the other hand, you are happy the way you are then don\’t bother seeking any further—nothing says you have to.
But don\’t expect that others will live to suit your self-imposed limits. There is an ancient saying "When you see a finger pointing to the moon go where the finger points—don\’t suck it for comfort."
Do as you will—the way is open to all—but no one can walk it for you.
Love is the law, love under will
Cassandra
Cassandra,I believe that we are also referred to as "bond-servants" of Christ (referring only to myself, of course). There is also a great deal of verbiage in acts about how we are free to live without sin, not to continue in our previous patterns of sinful behavior. No one who met Christ and accepted him continued in their present pattern. Rather foolish to think that\’s the way that it\’s supposed to be now. I know what Paul said, and I know who\’s will he was seeking when he said. I have a fair guess about you.James was a brother, but aside from historically he seems to have had very little clout. Paul was the principle writer. I have heard about the council you mention and the controversy over some books. The rejected works were judged to be false based on their disunity with the rest of the Gospel. Now, if you truly believe that God is so feeble and weak that he can\’t even get his message accurately across, the message he declares in Isaiah will stand forever, then by all means go ahead. My God is strong and able. In fact, I can\’t imagine the concept of a "God" where "able" didn\’t come into the definition. The god you seem to be advertising is weak, dependent on humans for so much, a god of confusion. I can see why someone would turn against it. I can also see why it is quite worthless.A little history lesson on the judicial branch of government from the Federalist Papers by Hamilton."Whoever attentively considers the different departments of
power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each
other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least
dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least
in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the
honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands
the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every
citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence
over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of
the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may
truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL,
but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive
arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." (emphasis mine)It is completely ridiculous to believe that a young nation that just through off a monarchy from England would again develop a system where one branch has virtually unlimited authority to override the other two. It exists only when required to restrain government action. The idea of it ordering the legislation to ratify gay marriage or anything else is contrary to the purpose and intent of the document, and that was the purpose the people agreed to. No one agreed in legislation or amendment to make the judiciary a super legislature. Some of them would certainly like to be, but that is for aspiring dictators, not judges of the law.
Oh, one other VERY small point, Gary, dear—you love to bring up murder and all sorts of things to bolster your argument against same sex marriage…but this is all of a part with your belief system so I suppose we will have to accept that you are going to keep it up. But there is no real connection, you know. You sound like that ditz Iris Robinson the Irish MP who can\’t seem to avoid mentiong child molestation in the same breath with homosexuality as though the two were somehow related even though statistics have shown over and over that the vast majority of child molesters are HETEROSEXUAL.
But to get back to the main point—when Kevin and Doug married—all they did was to proclaim their devotion to each other to the world. I fail to see how that doesn\’t glorify God (whatever that noun means) in all possible ways.
But no one is going to win here, Gary, you see things differently from the way we see them and that\’s okay. You aren\’t going to convince us that YOU are right and there is clearly no way we can convince you that WE are right.
But you and I have both explained what we think God has in mind—I\’ll ask the readers of this blog to try this experiment. Tonight, when things quiet down, sit down and just look at these two different points of view (the one Gary has put forward and the one I have put forward) and ask yourselves: to which does your heart respond?
For your heart is your truest guide on the Spirit Quest.
Oh, Gary,
I responded to your last post before you popsted it when I said "one only get "glimpses" of Christ\’s true message in the books that the Church (humans again) have chosen to allow us to see." That means that one has to go outside the Bible as we have it for more. For example Jude quotes the Book of Enoch—surely an indication of its versacity—it still exists—you can download it from my skydrive—yet it wasn\’t included in the Bible. These people had human agendas…put flesh and blood on them will you? God\’s message DID survive–it\’s just not ALL where they tell you it is.
Cass
Oh–about the Federalist Papers bit. You\’ll probably have to wait until Gary gets back from Idaho for an answer to that—Civics isn\’t my area.
Cass
GARY gets back??? SHEESH!!! What I MEANT to say was you will probably have to wait, Gary, until KEVIN gets back from Idaho.
(sigh) The Alzheimer\’s is knocking at the door of me brain
"Oh,
one other VERY small point, Gary, dear—you love to bring up murder
and all sorts of things to bolster your argument against same sex
marriage…but this is all of a part with your belief system so I
suppose we will have to accept that you are going to keep it up. But
there is no real connection, you know."But Cassandra, the only reason that I brought it up was in response to you. You asserted that a complete "freedom from law" was the correct interpretation of New Testament scripture. I merely pointed out the logical consequences of your statement. You essentially said that God has authorized a free-for-all, for the same God who made the law regarding homosexuality made the law about murder, theft, adultery, coveting, etc. And as Paul wrote, if you broke one, you are guilty of breaking all. As for the heart being the true spirit guide, I really have to disagree. If that were the case, I think more people would have found God and humanity would not be in such a sad state in so many places. Your arguments rely heavily on self interest, which as you have said with regards to televangelists, can distort even good motives. I, on the other hand, have nothing to gain if gay marriage is not approved and nothing to lose (tangibly) if it is approved. From that standpoint, your motives are more suspect.You speak emphatically on the Bible, and I guess we stalemate there. You have your theologicians and I have mine. Asserting that either of us can "prove" the other wrong is laughable, in matters of what intents were when things happened. I accept the scriptures as wholly true and accurate by faith, and by the fact that no significant evidence has been found to the contrary. I know a lot of scholars disagree, and they are certainly entitled to their opinion, but opinion is different than fact. So, as you have said, we might want to avoid the religious controversy, and stick with the legal, which brings on the next point."h–about
the Federalist Papers bit. You\’ll probably have to wait until Gary gets
back from Idaho for an answer to that—Civics isn\’t my area."I thought this was really hilarious. Here you are fighting tooth and nail, insisting that you have "the correct" view as to what the duties and the perogatives of the judiciary are, and when confronted with the facts, you simply say "Sorry, not my field." Doesn\’t it bother you at all that you are so emphatic about areas that are well out of your expertise? Are you really ready to trample the rights of others with so little regard for the history and formulation of the system that creates and guarantees those rights?And the big question: With the attitude that you have displayed, being perfectly willing to trample the rights of others with little historical or legal knowledge ont the subject, can you at last understand or at least allow for the possibility that not all of your problems are due to prejudice? That you and people of similar attitude really are becoming a threat to the democratic process?
Gary–You state:
"I don\’t know where you learned civics, but they had a great sense of humor. The judiciary is to ensure that the government (as in legislature and executive branches) does not infringe on the rights of the people. The legislature is the provider of rights under our Constitution, with the exception of the ones "endowed by our Creator."
I like humor. Anyway, I don\’t know where you live, but in the last two years the legislature in California has approved gay marriage. The governor has denied it. The judiciary in California is just following the will of the legislature here. And you must know that the will of the people now is for same sex marriage. Fancy that! I find it funny now that the will of the people has changed since the will of the people in 2000.
Uh huh, so what you are saying is that you have been defeated on Religious grounds and now want to shift the argument. Which only proves what I have been saying from the start. You\’re prejudiced against gays. That\’s all there is to it. All the rest is just window dressing. As for giving place to Kevin—well, it\’s his blog, to start with. And he\’s a pretty well-educated guy, university lecturer and all that—so why not?
Besides if people want to read what I think they go to my space they don\’t come here.
(Figures a Christian wouldn\’t recognize humility—OR courtesy, come to that. But, okay…your problem with the judiciary is that the judges are not "elected officials" am I right? But that\’s not entirely true, is it? What do you think, Gary, they just appear out of thin air? The people who APPOINT judges ARE elected officials—and it is other elected officials who pass on those appointments (or not) so the very face of the judiciary is shaped by the people we vote for (and who—presumably—reflect the opinions of those who have elected them), So why this huge fear of letting the Judiciary decide? Because they might choose to protect the rights of the minority over and against the prejudices of the majority? That\’s their job. It\’s what they are there for. And THAT, dear boy, is in the Constitution.
Cass
In fact, let\’s cut through all the crap, shall we, Gary? What your argument REALLY boils down to it this: "What them homos do with each other—that just ain\’t natchral!"
It always comes down to that after we winnow out all the chaff. And what you mean is that it isn\’t natural to YOU! And that\’s fine. Some people hate artichokes while others (like me) can\’t get enough of the stuff.
That\’s all there is to it, Gary. Homosexuality is as natural and normal as breathing to a homosexual and there\’s no way to "cure" that (because it isn\’t a disease) and no way to "fix" it because there\’s nothing broken.
Hi Kevin,"Anyway,
I don\’t know where you live, but in the last two years the legislature
in California has approved gay marriage. The governor has denied it.
The judiciary in California is just following the will of the
legislature here. And you must know that the will of the people now is
for same sex marriage. Fancy that! I find it funny now that the will
of the people has changed since the will of the people in 2000. "That\’s a very interesting interpretation of the facts. Let\’s look at the record, shall we? The governor exercised a veto, which is a proper use of his authority, but that can be overriden by the legislature. Obviously it was not, so that kind of punches a hole in that. As for the will of the people, I seem to recall a referendum that went to "the people" out there, and gay marriage was soundly defeated. In the year 2000, more than 61% of California voters passed prop 22 declaring marriage was between a man and a woman, and that\’s what the judiciary overturned. I don\’t know how you could have help but hear about it. It was in all of the papers. In fact, the success of that referendum was the major reason why gay marriage activists worked so hard to keep the new referendum out. They are all in favor of "the will of the people", unless of course they want something differnt.Cassie,"Uh
huh, so what you are saying is that you have been defeated on Religious
grounds and now want to shift the argument. Which only proves what I
have been saying from the start. You\’re prejudiced against gays."I\’m not sure what you are talking about. You proved that you have one interpretation of the Bible, but hardly anything better than I came up with, and you proved that you have little understanding of due process as far as rights in America is concerned. Having failed completely at anything approaching a logical argument, you do what a lot of liberals do these days: You call names. "your problem with the judiciary is that the judges are not "elected officials" am I right?"No, you are not correct. (And BTW – you threw out courtesy a long time ago, so get off your high horse, okay?) Some judges are appointed, some are elected. In either case, it is not their job to order laws, declare rights or anything of the kind. I beleive I was quite specific. I know it is much easier to win an argument win you get to make your case and your opponents, but why don\’t you let me do it myself. "So why this huge fear of letting the Judiciary decide? Because
they might choose to protect the rights of the minority over and
against the prejudices of the majority? That\’s their job. It\’s what
they are there for. And THAT, dear boy, is in the Constitution."Show me where it says that in the US Constitution, and I will concede your point. If not, then you can add "outright liar" to "emotional" and "irrational" as your argument style. BTW – Here is a link to an on-line version:http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am11I just looked through it. It says nothing close to what you have said. What a surprise!"So why this huge fear of letting the Judiciary decide?"I\’m pretty sure I\’ve already covered it in previous comments. I fear dictatorship, facism, and tyranny. You might try reading "Judgement at Nuremburg" for a good example of how even judges are not immune from the corrupting influences of power. Or, you could check out Jonah Goldberg\’s latest book: Liberal Facism. You won\’t have any trouble finding it. I understand it\’s a best sellar."In
fact, let\’s cut through all the crap, shall we, Gary? What your
argument REALLY boils down to it this: "What them homos do with each
other—that just ain\’t natchral!"Okay, Cassie, let\’s cut through the crap: Minorities have gotten most everything they\’ve wanted for the past three decades by calling racism, sexism, or some other "ism". It\’s made them spoiled and intellectually lazy, because you don\’t seem to feel the need to stick to anything close to facts in the argument. For years now, you\’ve screamed "discrimination" and people have rolled over. But they\’re just words, Cassie, hate filled words. They don\’t frighten or impress me. If you want this so bad, then take advantage of the rights that you do have – petition, debate, learn, convince people. Get off your duff and stop expecting that you can everything handed to you by a sympathetic judge, because some day the judges might not be so sympathetic any you\’ll lose it all.
Gary, let\’s get some things straight here, shall we? You state: "Okay, Cassie, let\’s cut through the crap: Minorities have gotten most everything they\’ve wanted for the past three decades by calling racism, sexism, or some other "ism". It\’s made them spoiled and intellectually lazy, because you don\’t seem to feel the need to stick to anything close to facts in the argument."
I teach a class on Race, Ethnicity and Immigration in the U.S. and I don\’t appreciate your ignorance on this subject. Minorities are not spoiled and intellectually lazy. Either state the truth or perhaps it is better is you keep your views on this subject to yourself. And why is it that when I find someone who doesn\’t like the glbt community, they don\’t like immigrants either? Why is that?
And I would like to say something else to you as well. Cass is my friend. We are all going to be friendly here. So I would appreciate it if the tone stays friendly.
About your comments on Prop. 21 (or whatever number it was). I was living in Australia when it passed. However, I am now in California and now that prop. was ruled unconstitutional, regardless of the number of people who voted for it. And the majority view is now against the old vote taken 8 years ago. Yes, let the will of the people go forward. And as I stated, the legislature here, for two years in a row, voted to allow gay marriage. They will keep doing it until the current gov. accepts it, or until we get a democratic governor. But that doesn\’t matter now, since gay marriage is allowed. Besidside, my marriage has nothing to do with your life at all.
Gary you say you don\’t know where Kevin lives—yet evry windows live space has a "Profile Module" and Kevin\’s clearly states San Francisco (that\’s in Northern California, in case you didn\’t know). Lovely place I spent a good deal of time there in the 60s and early 70s. San Francisco, home of Cable Cars, Rice-a-Roni, Finochio\’s Cabaret (which is, alas, no longer there but here\’s a link with info http://members.tgforum.com/dealba2/david5a.htm) and more happy Gay, Lesbian, Bi, and Transgendered Americans than you can shake a Falwell at. Ah, such memories!!!
Oh, well, that\’s where they live—if we ever manage to rescue them from the foul clutches of Macavity and his Minions, of course.
Usually you\’ll find me in Minneapolis, MN in case you were wondering.
But you know what I was wondering? Why is it you don\’t want minorities to get what they want if they have been unjustly discriminated against in the past? Surely that is one of the most wonderful things ABOUT America—that minoprites CAN "petition for a redress of grievances" (oh, that\’s in the part of the Constitution called the FIRST AMENDMENT where it says THIS: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
Continued from last post
Now, the Government has THREE branches The Executive, the Legislative, AND the Judiciary. And one can petition any or all of the three—but since it is the Supreme Court that INTERPRETS what the law says (including the Constitution) it is natural that people would approach that branch. And, really, it\’s nothing for you to worry about. No one is going to demand that any Churches be required by LAW to perform same sex marriages or anything like that—(separation of Church and State, you know). Civil ceremonies will do just fine.
Much as you seem to dislike it that is the way this Country works.
Now I\’ve tried to share with you some of the discoveries that almost 60 years of experience have acquired for me—I pointed the way out of the judgementalism that has been the bane of Christianity almost since it\’s founder\’s death. More than that I cannot do for you. If you choose to ally yourself with the "Accuser of the Brethren" (Revelation Chapter 12) then so be it.
STOP THE PRESSES!!!! Last night after I posted my last message I had
A V I S I O N
A little angel came right up, hit me with her wand, (PWANG!!!!) said "DIG this!"
And I DUG it!!!
GARY thinks gay people want to CHANGE the marriage laws!!!
(Thilly boy)
NO one wants to do that.
GAY people just want equal consideration UNDER the law. They want to see marriage laws apply equally to ALL and THAT is why the Judiciary has been chosen as the venue—NOW do you understand?
Cass
Hey give me some credit here readers—at least I didn\’t say that the Christian and I had been talking at CROSS-purposes, now DID I?
🙂
Hey Cass,
Christian and cross purposes! Hehehehehe…
I was so happy to hear that by 2040 white people will no longer be the majority. It is time for the current majority to rethink their discrimination policies, because soon they will be on the receiving end of things.
Kevin,"I
teach a class on Race, Ethnicity and Immigration in the U.S. and I
don\’t appreciate your ignorance on this subject. Minorities are not
spoiled and intellectually lazy. Either state the truth or perhaps it
is better is you keep your views on this subject to yourself. And why
is it that when I find someone who doesn\’t like the glbt community,
they don\’t like immigrants either? Why is that?"I always endeavor to be truthful, and because my integrity is important to me, I will apologize for a bit of rhetorical hyperbole. How about this: By exploiting the guilt of the majority, minorities have pushed through quotas in schools and jobs (unconstitutional), restraints on speech (also unconstitutional), and injection of religion into at least some public school systems. Does that work better for you? And if you want to throw out comments like ignorant, then please be willing to show me how. I can provide examples on record for pretty much everything I say, though in many cases I defer to Mr. Cosby, who is a far more elegant speaker than I can hope to be.And it was certainly a generalization to call them spoiled and intellectually lazy, but if that isn\’t the case then why is it that Cassie and you seem to have such a poor concept of what constitutes a right, how they are determined, what the court\’s prerogatives are under the Constitution, the contents of the Constitution, etc.?And why is it I get called for my inaccuracies while "your friend" gets away with complete lies? There wouldn\’t be a double standard involved, would there?"I
was living in Australia when it passed. However, I am now in California
and now that prop. was ruled unconstitutional, regardless of the number
of people who voted for it. "Yes it was, and if you examine the California Constitution you will see that the matter is not addressed. Therefore, the court had no grounds to review it. If the executive branch actually decided to uphold the law, the judiciary wouldn\’t have a leg to stand on."Yes,
let the will of the people go forward. And as I stated, the
legislature here, for two years in a row, voted to allow gay marriage.
They will keep doing it until the current gov. accepts it, or until we
get a democratic governor. But that doesn\’t matter now, since gay
marriage is allowed. Besidside, my marriage has nothing to do with
your life at all. "So when the people vote as they see fit, it has no standing. When the legislature overrides them directly, that\’s the will of the people going forward. By the way, if the majority is so for gay marriage, then why is it that everyone on your side was working so hard to keep the issue off the ballot for a Constitutional Amendment? And why is it that the Secretary of State chose to use false and misleading terminology in the ballot proposition?For a person who was so concerned about honesty a few comments ago, that last comment doesn\’t show such a fine appreciation. Your relationship has nothing to do with my life. Marriage is a public institution, therefore it affects the entire public sphere. Refer to other comments for how."And
I would like to say something else to you as well. Cass is my friend.
We are all going to be friendly here. So I would appreciate it if the
tone stays friendly."Is this an example of "friendly?""In
fact, let\’s cut through all the crap, shall we, Gary? What your
argument REALLY boils down to it this: "What them homos do with each
other—that just ain\’t natchral!""If that\’s the case, I think I can meet the standard."But
you know what I was wondering? Why is it you don\’t want minorities to
get what they want if they have been unjustly discriminated against in
the past? Surely that is one of the most wonderful things ABOUT
America—that minoprites CAN "petition for a redress of grievances"
(oh, that\’s in the part of the Constitution called the FIRST AMENDMENT
where it says THIS: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances. "The Supreme Court has ruled that reverse discrimination as recompense for past injustice is not a valid issue. You are correct: One of the best things about America is that every can petition, but if you knew much about law you would understand that courts are not designed to respond to petitions. In fact, there are strict requirements to get a case before the court, so that other comment about petitioning other branches is kind of out to lunch. (Tell me, Kevin, was she just lying there?) Your comments about not changing the law are also incorrect. Until recently mandated, gay marriages have never been accepted by law and custom. You are attempting to change the law (you know, it really is amazing that you just got that since I\’ve been talking about it for some time). If it wasn\’t a change in law, there wouldn\’t be much of an issue, now would there? In fact, you wouldn\’t have an issue. But you are, so you do."Much as you seem to dislike it that is the way this Country works."Really? Is that why I am standing up for due process and you freely admit that you would disregard it to get your own way?"I
was so happy to hear that by 2040 white people will no longer be the
majority. It is time for the current majority to rethink their
discrimination policies, because soon they will be on the receiving end
of things."The way things are going, the dominant majority by then might be Muslims. My, won\’t that be a shot in the arm for gay rights. Seriously, I will bend over backward to give anyone equal rights or opportunity, but that\’s not what you are asking for. You are saying that you want the cultural institution of marriage redefined to suit you, and I say that\’s a matter for the legislature, not the courts. If the system is used the way it is supposed to be, according to Constitutional process, then no one has to worry about whether they are the minority or majority. Taking short cuts will only involve ruin for all. Now, just for a change, how about giving some of the questions I\’ve asked a fair answer?
Gary,
I am going to be driving all day tomorrow and won\’t be able to respond until Saturday some time. But before I log off, I do want to quickly respond to this statement of yours:
"I say that\’s a matter for the legislature, not the courts."
As I said, for the past two years, the legislature has passed legislation to make gay marriage legal. The gov. vetoed it. I guess the gov. is part of the legislature. And he apparently has the say.
Hi Kevin, Hi Cass,
I\’ve come to say goodbye and wish you well. As for your last set of comments, Cass, I\’m satisfied with what I\’ve written. I beleive that any rational person will read what you have said and what I have said and make a reasonable judgment. I guess I\’ll leave it at that.
Goodbye—AGAIN
Hey Cass,
Thanks for the correction–the governor is part of the executive branch–not the legislative. So here in California we have the legislative branch voting to allow gay marriage, which should make Gary happy. ("You are saying that you want the cultural institution of marriage redefined to suit you, and I say that\’s a matter for the legislature, not the courts."). It was a matter for the legislature, but the executive branch vetoed it. But it is all a moot point–the judicial branch decided that a majority vote taking denying people rights was wrong. And I am happy that it was a Republican that said that.
yw Kevin never got to correct a boffin before!!! Wooo Hoo!!!! (ahem)
But see m,y blog essay "The Blind Spot" on my Windows Live Space for a cautionary thought we could ALL benefit from!!!
Cass