Asking Millions for Permission to Marry Someone You Love

It is hard to believe that this is what many of us have to do to get a civil marriage.  It is just as bad as when races were not allowed to get married.  Here is a video that my friend Tim put up on his Facebook Page.  It is pretty good and even though it is made for Ireland, it is applicable here.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Asking Millions for Permission to Marry Someone You Love

  1. Unknown says:

    Kevin,"It is just as bad as when races were not allowed to get married."Considering that you are studying history, you don\’t seem to have much historical perspective. At the time that interracial marriage was outlawed, attacks were common on interracial couples by outraged white people. Such attacks are rare these days, and the last one that I read about was performed by African Americans. It was also far more than marriage in law that was prevented. While I am aware that some bonafide hate crimes still occur, I\’ve seen nothing to indicate that they contribute a substantial percentage to the overall criminal statistics. I am not excusing any crime. I am simply stating that the odds between being the victim of a "hate" crime (which I think is a very stupid term since I have never heard of a "love" crime) are virtually indistinguishable from being a victim of any crime. There is also the consideration that interracial couples were simply asking to take advantage of the same legal privilege of marriage as everyone else without trying to judicially force a revision of the institution down the throats of an unwilling population. If you believe that I am exaggerating, I would recommend talking to Mormons and African Americans in California who had their churches invaded and were publicly defamed on television for participating in the democratic process. As an aside, don\’t feel like the Lone Ranger. According to military law, enlisted men still need the permission of their commanding officer to marry. Also under military law, they are forbidden to lobby for change.

  2. Kevin says:

    Hi No Name,I do study history and I stand by the parallel. The fact that people could not marry who they loved 45 years ago is the same as people who cannot marry who they love today (except those like me who were lucky to be included in the group whose marriages were upheld by the California State Supreme Court and in the few other states that allow it).Your argument against hate crimes doesn\’t make too much sense if you look at crime in general. You seem to imply that just if there are a few people who are bashed and killed for being who they are then there shouldn\’t be a law protecting them. How many people are killed by medical malpractice in this country? Not very many–but by your argument there shouldn\’t be a law protecting the people who are injured and killed by doctors. And why does the name of a crime has to have an opposite name for another crime??? You mean to tell me that you have never heard of a crime of someone who loved someone so much that they killed that person? There was just a woman who killed her handicapped daughter because she couldn\’t find adequate care for her in any nursing homes. She then killed herself. That is a "love crime" if you ask me. It appears that your problem with hate crime is only that it may cover the glbt community. Don\’t you realized that your own religious choice is protected? Or your gender is protected? Yes, under the same Hate crime legislation. However, people like you want to prevent a group that has also been discriminated against from getting equal protection. Interracial couples were fighting to get a revision of the law–I don\’t think you know your history very well. And that decision was a judicial decision by the way, just like nearly all the other laws that protect race. If left up to the majority, \’races\’ would be unprotected. It takes a court to do the right thing. Oh, those poor Mormons! They spend millions of dollars of tax-free non-profit money preventing groups of people from getting equal treatment under the law. They could have spent that money on the poor or the sick. And the African Americans who voted to take away the rights of other minorities should be totally ashamed of themselves. They certainly do not know/understand their own history. If I had a tiny violin I would play it for both of those \’terrorized\’ groups.Don\’t worry–I don\’t feel like the Lone Ranger. And the military examples do not apply to what I am talking about. Send in a gay serviceman who has protected all of us to ask his commanding officer if he can marry his partner and we\’ll see what happens then.

  3. Kevin says:

    P.S. No Name–did you bother to watch the video? Why should anyone have to ask the permission of anyone to marry in a civil marriage union?

  4. Unknown says:

    Hi Kevin,This is gbaker. Don\’t know why my name isn\’t showing up…"You seem to imply that just if there are a few people who are bashed and killed for being who they are then there shouldn\’t be a law protecting them."On the contrary. I believe everyone is entitled to equal protection under law. Take the Matthew Shepard case. The murder was a tragedy, no doubt about it, but for the life of me I can\’t understand why people would use it as a case for a "hate crimes" law. The law worked exactly as intended. The perpetrators were caught, arrested, tried, and convicted. If the system had failed, I would have at least been more willing to listen."How many people are killed by medical malpractice in this country? Not very many–but by your argument there shouldn\’t be a law protecting the people who are injured and killed by doctors."Again, nothing like what I said. Please address my points, not what you want me to have said."You mean to tell me that you have never heard of a crime of someone who loved someone so much that they killed that person?"Absolutely, and it is handled using the same statutes designed to protect everyone equally."It appears that your problem with hate crime is only that it may cover the glbt community. Don\’t you realized that your own religious choice is protected? Or your gender is protected?"Please explain to me why a separate statute is needed. "Interracial couples were fighting to get a revision of the law–I don\’t think you know your history very well. "I do indeed. They were fighting for a legal privilege, not right, that others enjoyed and was denied them only because of race. What you are attempting to do is take a different relationship and redefine an existing institution to include it. Not the same."And that decision was a judicial decision by the way, just like nearly all the other laws that protect race."Courts have no power to enact legislation. They can declare a law unconstitutional, but have no authority to direct legislatures to do anything. The Massachusetts court had no authority to order the legislature to include gay marriage in the statute (at least not under US law. If they have that authority under the Mass state constitution, so be it.) Your argument about judges having to do the right thing most of the time where race is concerned is incorrect. While it is true that much change has resulted from court decisions, very little could or should have come of it unless congress had first passed appropriate legislation on Constitutional grounds and procedures (several amendments, the civil rights act, etc.)"It takes a court to do the right thing. "So, your basic premise is that democracy is wrong, and only courts who agree with you should have the authority to make law regards to equal opportunity? Where did you learn that? Young dictator\’s school?"Oh, those poor Mormons! They spend millions of dollars of tax-free non-profit money preventing groups of people from getting equal treatment under the law."Are you saying that people who don\’t agree with your positions should not have full protection? That they should not be able to use their resources to participate in the democratic process without fear of reprisal? Tell me: Who is it that is advocating the unequal treatment of people now? "They spend millions of dollars of tax-free non-profit money preventing groups of people from getting equal treatment under the law."Non-sequitar and inaccurate. LGBT people have the same legal ability to marry as everyone else. The problem is that they want to redefine their particular brand of relationship as "marriage," and they don\’t want to do the hard work to get it passed by the legislature. Act like political radicals and you get treated that way."They could have spent that money on the poor or the sick."Which is true, but irrelevant. There are always other things that money can be spent on. Perhaps if the LGBT community spent more of their own money on peaceably convincing people to their point of view rather than invading churches and making smear commericals then they would already have the legislation enacted."And the African Americans who voted to take away the rights of other minorities should be totally ashamed of themselves. "They probably should…if they were really taking away any "rights." You, on the other hand, seem very willing to deny people you disagree with due process, right to representative government, etc.If I made some counterfeit money in my basement that was completely indistinguishable from "genuine" money in all respects, it would still be counterfeit. The reason is that part of what makes money valuable is that the people through their representatives have established the procedures for its production and control. The process of how it comes to be is just as important as the final product. That\’s the way it works.Marriage is a lot like that. You seem to feel picked on because you have to "get permission." Guess what? Once upon a time, everyone did. Marriage as practiced under law is a man-made institution, and a big part of that law is precedent. You\’re trying to bully your way into saying that something is the same. It doesn\’t work that way. In a democratic society, people have to agree, and right now they don\’t. If you don\’t like, then get off your butt and do the work about gaining acceptance. Give people a good reason to say that what you have is just as good, if you can, and stop stomping your collective feet like spoiled children.

  5. Unknown says:

    Another aside – From your picture I see that you and I have something in common. We\’re both white males. Interestingly enough, over the last thirty years or so, the gay community has made incredible strides in equal protection and rights, which I am all for. On the other hand, white males have steadily lost equal protection and rights due to race and gender preferences. I wonder why you are so passionate about a situation that is steadily getting better while being so silent about a situation that has been steadily getting worse? Curious…

  6. Kevin says:

    Hi GBaker,Let\’s get to your last post first. What equal protection have I lost, as a white male, in this country? I am silent because I haven\’t lost any rights due to what you are calling race and gender. If you are more specific, maybe I won\’t remain silent.Laws in this country are based on degree of the serious of the crime. An outright intentional murder is treated as being more serious than an accidental murder. Intention is the key. Hate crime legislation is the same. The intent to murder or maim someone, motivated by hate, based on race, religion, sex and sexual orientation is regarded as being a more serious crime. The reason this is the case is most people think that killing someone because they are of a certain skin color is awful. You ask me to keep to your points, and I have done that. When you state: "I\’ve seen nothing to indicate that they contribute a substantial percentage to the overall criminal statistics. I am not excusing any crime. I am simply stating that the odds between being the victim of a "hate" crime (which I think is a very stupid term since I have never heard of a "love" crime) are virtually indistinguishable from being a victim of any crime" then I feel you are talking about numbers or crimes. You imply that the overall number of hate crimes do not add to the number of crimes. This is false. You just need to look at the crime statistics in this country. The government keeps track of things like this. You ask: "Please explain to me why a separate statute is needed." Please see above (about intent).You state: "So, your basic premise is that democracy is wrong, and only courts who agree with you should have the authority to make law regards to equal opportunity? Where did you learn that? Young dictator\’s school?" Hmm. If I remember correctly (and correct me if I am wrong) the judical branch of our government was set up to make sure that the majority could not act the way it wanted to in some cases. This is referred to as the tyranny of the majority. My god, if the majority in this country had their way all the time, we would still have slaves, or we would still have laws that stopped interracial marriage. Do you honestly believe that the majority is always right, in all cases? You state: "Are you saying that people who don\’t agree with your positions should not have full protection? That they should not be able to use their resources to participate in the democratic process without fear of reprisal? Tell me: Who is it that is advocating the unequal treatment of people now?" I will use your own words as my response to that: "Again, nothing like what I said. Please address my points, not what you want me to have said." If you think that the glbt community wasn\’t attacked by the very same people that voted Yes on 8, then I\’m not sure what I can say about that. I had signs torn down in my private property. I received letters to my address that were pretty awful (in response to a letter I wrote to the San Francisco Chronicle). I was called fag and told that 8 had to pass so that no one like me would be able to move into any neighborhood. My experiences given by the good Christian community are very similar all across the country. Yes, people can vote the way they want. However, non profits are not allowing to inject themselves into political campaigns. The courts will decide the outcome of that–not me.You state: "LGBT people have the same legal ability to marry as everyone else." Next I am going to hear Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It is a ridiculous argument to say that glbt people can marry, but it has to be someone of the opposite sex. I tell you what. I assume you are straight. How about you going to Mass. and get married to a man, or at least think about it. What are you thinking? You are thinking the same thing I am thinking when someone states that I can marry a woman if I want. You state: "You, on the other hand, seem very willing to deny people you disagree with due process, right to representative government, etc." Again Gary, stick to my original post. I should not have to ask the permission of the population to marry who I love. People can vote any way they want, but if that vote is potentially unconstitutional, I have every right (as you do) to take it to court for the court to decide what is constitutional and what isn\’t. Here is a case (you may disagree with). A majority of people in California voted to take race into consideration when renting or selling property (this is in the 1960s). This was taken to court, and it was overturned because it was unconstitutional. The court wasn\’t saying these people shouldn\’t have voted the way they did–they are saying that the law they created was wrong. You state: "In a democratic society, people have to agree, and right now they don\’t." Well, the majority was only 51.9% in California. I am assuming you will be very happy when the now-majority will become the now-minority? It sounds like this will be the case. I am also assuming you are for getting rid of Don\’t Ask, Don\’t Tell, since by far a majority of Americans are against this. Am I right or am I wrong? You state: "If you don\’t like, then get off your butt and do the work about gaining acceptance." Interesting. I guess I shouldn\’t be surprised that you haven\’t been reading my blog since I started this (nearly 4 years ago). I suggest you look at my very first post. You can also look up my history to see that I have been doing this sort of \’work\’ since the 1990s. You state: "Give people a good reason to say that what you have is just as good, if you can, and stop stomping your collective feet like spoiled children." I have found that with a good number of people, it doesn\’t matter what good reasons we can give, because nothing will be convincing (for various reasons, but mostly religious). I could say that as a tax-paying adult, who is fully capable of making my own decisions about who I love, that I have every right to the same treatment as everyone else, including you. For me, that is a good reason and it should be a good reason for everyone else, especially with those who were once persecuted. But as I said, for some, there is no \’good reasoning\’ so there is little point in trying to convince those people. And I am still thinking over your last post about the protection you think we, as white males, are losing. I teach a course on Race, Ethnicity and Immigration in the U.S. and I would love to hear your complaints about your lost rights. You mention \’counterfeit.\’ I have heard this before in terms of the legal marriages that have occurred in various states. I assume your analogy to money is to marriage (maybe specifically to my marriage)? You believe they are counterfeit, but the court says otherwise. You can say what you want (obviously), but a whole group of people once said the world was flat when clearly that wasn\’t the case…I am also wondering about your statement about agreeing with the \’incredible strides in equal protection\’ that the glbt community has fought for. I am very glad you think that, but this was done through legislation in communities where the majority would have said no, if given the chance. What do you think about this?

  7. Kevin says:

    Hi Gary (I just made the connection between you and the posts at TalkWisdom),Here is a bit from my very first posting, Dec. 19, 2005:I am a church historian so I know a little bit about the way the Christian movement can be a force for good. I also know that it can be a force of evil and hate, and a good example are these fundies. Anyway, this blog is going to be my own little protest against these people who think they are religious, but do nothing but spread the message of hate."

  8. Unknown says:

    "What equal protection have I lost, as a white male, in this country?"In many state schools, which should have to promote and adhere to equal opportunity, a white male has to have substantially higher tests, grades, and accomplished to be accepted over a minority candidate. The exception is with regards to Asians, who face even greater discrimination with regards to academic opportunity. Race notwithstanding, females have to meet lower physical requirements for military service. Government contracting specifies set asides for minorities, violating equal protection in both awarding of contracts and hiring. These are off the top of my head."The intent to murder or maim someone, motivated by hate, based on race, religion, sex and sexual orientation is regarded as being a more serious crime."I disagree. If someone murders me because they hate me because I am white or if they just don\’t like my haircut, I am still as dead. In fact, the whole idea seems very Orwellian to me, making thought a crime. However, if you insist that something else is required, I am reasonably certain that judges and juries are often granted latitude in sentencing. If a law does not adequately protect one of us, it does not protect any of us. To say that crimes motivated by a particular hatred are worse smacks of "some pigs are more equal than others" to me."If I remember correctly (and correct me if I am wrong) the judical branch of our government was set up to make sure that the majority could not act the way it wanted to in some cases."I went looking for statistics as you said. The best I could find was for 2003. There were approximately 10,000 reported "hate crimes", and about 10 million crimes. I am not saying that the 10,000 people do not matter because everyone matters equally. I am saying that a 0.1% incidence rate does not indicate a rampant problem, especially when each of these incidents was already covered by legal protection. Again, if you want to toughen the protections for everyone, I\’m ready to discuss it. To send the message that there are some classes that are more protected than others I will fight to the end, especially when it makes it so easy for hustlers like Al Sharpton to put pressure for additional investigation on political grounds regardless of evidence. You remember incorrectly. The judicial branch is charged with the authority to make sure that the law is applied in a Constitutional manner. The judicial branch may have thought that slavery was wrong (and I agree, if I need to spell that out), but they had no authority to abolish it. It was established by the states and the legislatures under Constitutional process and had to be removed the same way. Even Lincoln\’s Emancipation Proclamation was basically nothing more than a gesture since it could not end slavery and only affected states that were not under union control at the time. It is likely that, had slavery not been abolished by amendment, the Proclamation itself would have been ruled unconstitutional. For more on this, you might try reading the Federalist Papers. It has a great deal of detail on exactly what the functions and limits of the judiciary are. I am very familiar with the term "tyranny of the majority." I grant that can happen. However all you seem to be offering is a "tyranny of the minority." Show me something convincing that your way is better. Are you so wise that you have all the answers? Are people who think like you really so much better equipped to make decisions affecting the rest of us? That seems to be your case. Please explain to me why you are not simply promoting a smaller circle of authority with people who think like you at the center."If you think that the glbt community wasn\’t attacked by the very same people that voted Yes on 8, then I\’m not sure what I can say about that."I will defend no attack on a person or property. Not by the pro-8 and not by those against. It\’s wrong, plain and simple. I would tell the yes on 8 people the same thing I am telling you: Stop acting like a terrorist and work within the system."Next I am going to hear Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It is a ridiculous argument to say that glbt people can marry, but it has to be someone of the opposite sex."On the contrary – that is the definition of marriage. If you don\’t like it, work to change it. Don\’t demand everyone else change their mind to accommodate you."Again, nothing like what I said. Please address my points, not what you want me to have said"That is very much what you said. You show zero respect in your writings for the property or rights of anyone who disagrees with you. If you want others to respect your rights, but refuse to respect theirs you are not going to get far. What do you call it anyway when you run roughshod over people for voting according to their conscience? Sounds like disrespect to me. Sounds like thuggery."A majority of people in California voted to take race into consideration when renting or selling property (this is in the 1960s). This was taken to court, and it was overturned because it was unconstitutional. The court wasn\’t saying these people shouldn\’t have voted the way they did–they are saying that the law they created was wrong."If it was wrong under the constitution, then the courts acted properly. Show me please in the constitution where your rights are being denied and I will start working immediately to defend them. You have my word on that."I am also assuming you are for getting rid of Don\’t Ask, Don\’t Tell, since by far a majority of Americans are against this. Am I right or am I wrong?"You are wrong. Your conclusion assumes that a person is obligated to change their view based on that of the majority, which is never something I have said. I have said that when a legal vote is taken on a proper issue, the minority needs to abide by the lawful decision of the majority until such time as the law is changed. "I could say that as a tax-paying adult, who is fully capable of making my own decisions about who I love, that I have every right to the same treatment as everyone else, including you."And you are treated as everyone else with the same legal rights and protections. That doesn\’t mean that people are obligated to sanction your lifestyle choices, which is what you are demanding. Not going to happen. Even if gay marriage were legalized in all 50 states tomorrow, you still wouldn\’t get that acceptance. You have freedom of association. Love who you want. Enjoy. "I am very glad you think that, but this was done through legislation in communities where the majority would have said no, if given the chance. What do you think about this?"Some people will always find someone to hate. You may or may not believe this, but there is no hatred in me for gays, blacks, whites, muslims, etc. I take people one at a time. I hate what is being done to the American system in the name of rights that are not really rights. "You believe they are counterfeit, but the court says otherwise."Some do and some don\’t. That\’s why this matter will never even be close to settled as long as it stays in the courts. Approval has to be earned. You\’re not there yet.

  9. Kevin says:

    Hi Gary,I teach at the university level. Nowhere have I heard that white males need higher grades. If you can tell me where, I will stand corrected. So you, as a white male, are discriminated against because a woman is allowed lower physical requirements? Is that discrimination? In the 1960s the government was required to give a certain percentage of work to minorities based on their percentage in population. This isn\’t discrimination. This is fairness. "making thought a crime." Where is having a thought a crime? It just doesn\’t exist. We are talking about physical violence. You can hate someone, but you don\’t have to kill or maim them. I hear a lot about \’though crimes\’ in regards to the hate crime legislation, but it always comes from people who have not read the legislation."Tyranny of the minority." That makes no sense in the voting process. You (the majority) got your way with Prop 8. However, it is within the right of every free person in this country to ask the court to look at what the majority decided."Are people who think like you really so much better equipped to make decisions affecting the rest of us?" Well, when it comes to people deciding what I can do in my own private life, then yes, I know best. My marriage does, in NO WAY, affect your life. Laws have been created to punish the glbt community for being who they are. If you can\’t understand that, then so be it, but you are wrong. History has proven that any group who thinks it is better than another is wrong. "Stop acting like a terrorist." O.k., those are fighting words. Define how I am a terrorist. I accepted the Prop. 8 vote. However, I also accept the fact, that as an American, I can fight that decision in the court, and if that fails, I can fight it at the ballot box. If that is your idea of a terrorist, then I feel sorry for you."You show zero respect in your writings for the property or rights of anyone who disagrees with you." Gary, here is the deal–you show me where I show no respect for the property or rights of others, or shut up. Put up or shut up. So show me, in my own words, where I show no respect for these things. Otherwise, apologize and we can move on.Show you the Constitution? How about the 14th Amendment–the Equal Protection Clause. Under the U.S. Constitution, I should be treated equally under the law. I am treated differently than other people because of my sexual orientation. In some states, I can be fired for just being who I am. This is not equal protection under the law. You seem to be under the impression that gay marriage needs to be accepted by a majority of people. I don\’t need your acceptance or permission. That is not what the law is about. The law is about treating people fairly. Some people don\’t like the fact (and do not accept) that black people are equal to white people. Acceptance isn\’t part of it. When the law doesn\’t treat all people fairly, something is fundamentally wrong with the law, and the courts will sometimes change this. Your acceptance of gay marriage will never happen because of your religious beliefs. However, your religious beliefs should not be imposed on me, even by a majority of voters. When laws are created by the majority based on their religious ideas, religion is being forced on an unwilling minority. I do not have to live under the religious government, which is why I will always support a judicial system that allows people to challenge the will of the majority, especially when they are wrong.Anyway, as I said–show me where I said I do not respect the property or rights of others–or shut up.And I want to see specific examples.

  10. Unknown says:

    "I teach at the university level. Nowhere have I heard that white males need higher grades. "That\’s really amazing considering that California Educators fought very hard against Prop 209 when all that it required was that no preference be given on the basis of race, color, etc. Anyway, you will find examples of some compelling arguments here:http://www.asianam.org/reverse_discrimination_vol__1.htmIt\’s a bit more difficult to pin down these days since supposedly race is only "considered" as one of many aspects, which begs the question of how if equal treatment is the law then such a consideration is allowed. A bitterly amusing anecdote: My sixteen year old daughter is at the top of her class. Literally. Last year, she took the PSAT as a sophomore and aced it. Literally. That was up from missing one on the test in ninth grade. I put her to work looking for scholarships. Later on, I overheard her talking to a friend on the phone about it and she was bumming. She couldn\’t find a lot of scholarships on line because in her words she was "too white." The phrase took me back. I wasn\’t quite up to my daughter\’s standards, but I did have an SAT of 1410 back in 1980. I couldn\’t make it to college until much later however. Affirmative action was just coming in, and I was on the wrong side of the color line. If you were to say that I have a chip on my shoulder about racial preferences, you would be correct. My dream is the same as the one Dr. King spoke of. The direction that we\’ve moved since then is a terrible sham."In the 1960s the government was required to give a certain percentage of work to minorities based on their percentage in population. This isn\’t discrimination. This is fairness."No, this is discrimination and it continues to this day. If I am unable to compete on the basis of my race or the race of my company owner, that is race based discrimination. Your argument is analogous to saying that in an area where all of the patients are black, all of the doctors would have to be black. Skill sets and interests are not equal across all races or areas."Where is having a thought a crime? It just doesn\’t exist. We are talking about physical violence."Obviously we are not. There are already legal penalties for physical violence. If you are not talking about criminalizing a particular attitude, then you would see no need for anything else."Well, when it comes to people deciding what I can do in my own private life, then yes, I know best. My marriage does, in NO WAY, affect your life."First off, you are already completely free to conduct your private life without interference. Marriage, however, is a public institution. It is a contract ratified between man, woman, and society. If it was purely private, there would be no license, no record. It would simply be your relationship, which you are very welcome to.Second, the last part of your statement is false. It does affect my life. Benefits come out of everyone\’s taxes. The state of public institutions influences policy, education, and other things that touch all of us. That is precisely why it is essential that society consents."Laws have been created to punish the glbt community for being who they are."Can you specify a few presently in effect."O.k., those are fighting words. Define how I am a terrorist. "That remark was not directed to you as an individual but to all of the members of your community who thought, and still think, that invading church\’s and producing smear commercials to discourage people from exercising their rights is justifiable. That is the use of unlawful intimidation to achieve a political goal. While that might not be the exact textbook definition of terrorism, I would say that it certainly comes close."Gary, here is the deal–you show me where I show no respect for the property or rights of others, or shut up."Your words:"Oh, those poor Mormons! They spend millions of dollars of tax-free non-profit money preventing groups of people from getting equal treatment under the law."No concern whatsoever for a group being targeted for intimidation based on lawful pursuit of their legal rights."If left up to the majority, \’races\’ would be unprotected. It takes a court to do the right thing. "Zero respect for the legislative process which is the Constitutional method of representative government."I am treated differently than other people because of my sexual orientation. In some states, I can be fired for just being who I am. This is not equal protection under the law."As far as I am concerned it is. You see, this is something you and I have in common. I can be fired at any time for any reason or no reason. I do not accept the premise that anyone has a "right" to a job. I definitely think that employers should be fair to their employees, and I also think that in a free market economy that bad employers will lose employees if they are not, but I am not about to say that I think government is a good arbiter. My only protection is the credibility that I put into my workplace, the idea that when things get tough, they know that I am a good man to keep around. "You seem to be under the impression that gay marriage needs to be accepted by a majority of people. "The 14th amendment refers to legal rights granted to all citizens and protections of law in pursuit of those rights. Marriage is not now and has never been a right. Think about it: If the government decided to close out marriage tomorrow, just not going to do it any more, could you sue? Would your "rights" have been violated because the government refused to act? No. Rights are the freedom to act without government interference. Look at the Bill of Rights. Congress shall pass no law interfering with our rights. That\’s what makes them rights. If government disappeared tomorrow, we would still have free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion. We wouldn\’t have legal marriage, social security (which has been tested in court and determined to not be a right), and any other number of programs. We also would not have services, which are also not rights."When the law doesn\’t treat all people fairly, something is fundamentally wrong with the law, and the courts will sometimes change this."If by "fairly" you mean "equally" then there are very few, if any, government instituted programs that treat people fairly. People living in some locations have access to government subsidized transportation. I don\’t. Some get social security. I don\’t because I don\’t meet the requirements established by the program the same way that you do not meet the requirements for a legal marriage. Some people have great schools, some lousy schools, some have cheap schools, some have very expensive schools (though oddly great and expensive do not always go together)."I do not have to live under the religious government, which is why I will always support a judicial system that allows people to challenge the will of the majority, especially when they are wrong."You may support it, but the rules for access are regulated by the legislature. The basic requirements are proof of harm, standing, and the ability to be made whole. Despite what you think, the law does not legally harm you. You should have no case. We\’ll see what happens."Anyway, as I said–show me where I said I do not respect the property or rights of others–or shut up.And I want to see specific examples."As noted above.To be recognized as part of the institution of marriage, yes, I do. Under your logic, if a certain group of citizens, or even one, decided that polygamy was the same as traditional marriage, I would have to step aside and let them make it so. Or if another group decided that incestuous relations were as good as marriage, I would have to accept that and let it happen. If I am wrong in this, then tell me how.

  11. Unknown says:

    Another aside: You wrote that government assigning contracts based on the makeup of the community was fairness. New Hampshire. I think it\’s rated as "the whitest state in the union," with something like a white percentage of 98%. Do you or anyone you know honestly believe that if the government there assigned 95% or 90% or even 70% of the contracts to be "white" awarded that it would be in any way construed as "fairness?"

  12. Kevin says:

    Gary, you are misunderstanding the whole reason why there were quotas. People of different races (still) in this country are not educated the same. More money goes to white schools, less money to black schools. More money equals better education. The whole point of the quota is to make sure that those groups who were left out because of their race are put back into the playing field. Your daughter seems pretty young to be declaring she is \’too white\’ for scholarships… I hope she has learned about the history of our country and how unfair it has been to those who are not white. And how do you know that your failure to get into college was because of race? Do you have absolute proof, or is it only a belief. Sometimes when we don\’t get what we want we will blame others, instead of blaming ourselves."It does affect my life. Benefits come out of everyone\’s taxes." And the benefits that your receive as a married male come out of my taxes as well. I pay tax too–you aren\’t the only one who does. That is the whole point of pooling money together. But it doesn\’t affect your life at all and the fact that my taxes help support our choice of being married doesn\’t affect my life either. About education–you will never, ever convince me that teaching kids to respect each other is a bad thing. You will never, ever convince me that teaching kids about different people is a bad thing. Luckily I am in a position to teach, and this is what I teach. I did it today when I gave a guest lecture in a class on myth and the Bible. I\’ll do it again tonight when I teach about what this government did to Native Americans and the Mexican Americans. Laws that punish gay people? In Utah a gay person can be fired for being gay (or presumed to be gay). At the federal level we have the Don\’t Ask, Don\’t Tell and DOMA. Florida has a law that prevents me and my husband from adopting a child (or any gay couple). Those are laws specifically made to punish gay people. I told you to find some of my own words where I show no respect for private property of those who oppose who I am–and you haven\’t done that. I said that the Mormons used non-profit money to influence a public policy matter–this is illegal in this country and it is now going through the courts. This has nothing to do with showing disrepect for their property. Nothing whatsoever. You are reading between the lines that do not exist. So I will wait until you do. Just because I have no pity for the Mormons and the legal problems they themselves created doesn\’t mean I don\’t repsect their private property. I\’ve never said that the mormon churches should be destroyed, or mormons should be killed, or rocks should be thrown through their windows. That would not be respecting their right to private property. I have also never said that the right of those people who voted Yes on 8 should not have been allowed to vote. I did say, and I say it now, that the vote should now be taken to court because there are many cases where the majority was wrong and it took the court to fix it. That is our legislative process. I have openly said that they voted wrong as well. But people have the right to vote the way they want. But, I have the right to challenge the vote if I feel it is harming me.

  13. Jeffrey says:

    What is the difference between murder, homicide, and manslaughter? Laws already exist to cover a human killing. Why do we need all these shades of gray? Which of those laws came first? And after which, why did we even consider the rest? Are there laws on the books regarding rape? Being so, why do we need special laws for rape involving a minor? A rape is a rape. No? Should we consider creating new laws when there are existing laws covering the same basic crime? If a new kind of murder is discovered with a new type of malice, can new laws be created to specifically address those crimes? Does it matter should it only apply to a single person? For example take assisted suicide. Isn’t that by some standard just plain murder? Why do the courts treat it differently?

  14. Unknown says:

    "Gary, you are misunderstanding the whole reason why there were quotas."I understand perfectly well at least some of the reasons for quotas, and they are all and have been declared unconstitutional. Shafting someone else because they or their ancestors may or may not have been discriminated against does nothing to restore fairness. It perpetuates racism."And how do you know that your failure to get into college was because of race? "My failure to get into college was not due to race. It was due to poverty. I had no resources to go to college, and at least partially due to the emphasis on attracting minority candidates, scholarships in my area for white guys were drying up. My daughter\’s lament is at all of the money going to help minority candidates and the dearth of grants and scholarships available to white candidates. Thank you affirmative action!"Sometimes when we don\’t get what we want we will blame others, instead of blaming ourselves."Like when we claim that we can\’t get married because we are gay and the real reason is that there never has been a precedent of a society formalizing gay marriage as an acceptable lifestyle?"But it doesn\’t affect your life at all and the fact that my taxes help support our choice of being married doesn\’t affect my life either."This why I get so frustrated trying to have discussions with liberals. I present them with facts and they dismiss them because they don\’t like them. IT DOES AFFECT MY LIFE. I understand that you pay taxes to support marriage. Guess what? Society decided a long time ago that they wanted to subsidize heterosexual marriage. It has advantages for society. There is no such history of benefit or consent for gay marriage. And I have no objection whatsoever to teaching kids about differences, but teaching kids in a public school that most kids are required to be at because they have no realistic alternative is impacting their values. When you teach someone things and lifestyles that directly contradict the religious and family values of their parents, you impact their lives. Once again you are implying that your view is so wise that it should override others.Punishment implies that a penalty is assessed to discourage a behavior. You have a point in Utah. DOMA and the Florida law are not punishments. You suffer no penalty whatsoever. You are restricted from certain privileges because you do not meet the requirements, but that isn\’t the same thing. In the military, everyone gets the same lecture I did. You know the requirements for serving. Meet them or leave. I guess it could be construed as a punishment. By that standard, people are also punished for incontinence, sleepwalking, and any number of other things that will cause discharge which may or may not be under their control. At any rate, gay people are not discharged for being gay. They may be for not being celibate…"I told you to find some of my own words where I show no respect for private property of those who oppose who I am–and you haven\’t done that."I told you that people\’s church\’s were being invaded and you sneered at them because you didn\’t like their attitude. At what point did you show any regard for their rights? They were invaded in a house of worship, which is a protected right. Don\’t tell me you respect people\’s rights. In the followup, you basically implied they deserved it because you had suffered from unlawful activity.I also seriously doubt you have any idea how much of the money used in the effort came from church\’s themselves and how much came from private donations from church members. Additionally, while this is not a property rights issue, your explanation of your liking for quotas above definitely shows that you do not believe in equal opportunity, but will gladly support a government that picks its own winners and losers provided that people like you get to pick the winners. Your philosophy of government seems to revolve a great deal more about vengeance on the perceived oppressors than any real effort at establishing equal opportunity. And news flash: A major reason that a lot of minorities can\’t seem to compete isn\’t their past poverty or victim status. Lots of people of all colors come from bad home lives. I have some pretty interesting stories about my own growing up that would put me right in there with the worst of them. But every day kids like that are succeeding, and a key element is not concentrating on victimhood and "giving" them advantages they haven\’t earned. Quite the contrary. High expectations and high standards are what works, along with teachers will to make them work with proven curriculum and no excuses. Unsurprisingly, the education unions and race hustlers consistently fight against these kind of reforms.

  15. Jeffrey says:

    So, how do we set the "precedent of a society formalizing gay marriage as an acceptable lifestyle?" Can we look to other countries? Can we look at other cultures? Is your permission required? Once a precedent is found, are we OK to move on with it here in the US? Like it or not, it\’s coming.

  16. Unknown says:

    In a representative democracy, such as we can hopefully maintain, I suppose there will have to be some type of consensus as to what constitutes sufficient "precedent." Considering the governance structure of the US, it will probably move in increments as it has with states adopting their own rules and codes on the issue. In fact, given the nature of the Constitution, I doubt that there will ever be anything like a national marriage law, and that\’s how the framers of the Constitution intended it. States were supposed to be in competition with each other, deciding things for themselves that were not spelled out in the US Constitution. Is my permission required? Have you ever heard the term "consent of the governed?" Part of that principle is that through their representatives, people are agreeing to the laws by which they are governed, and that\’s one of the biggest rubs that conservatives have with the whole "living Constitution" tripe. At the time the Constitution was ratified, government had no educational functions, so we get very ticked off when social policies are pushed in schools. In a similar vein, when the laws on marriage were written and ratified by the states, no one ever had any conception that they would be used with regards to same sex marriage. To that end, the governed have not "consented." The correct thing to do would have been to lobby for legislation to include and keep working until the people were ready to accept it. That would have taken more time, but it would have minimized a lot of the hostility. By instead going to the judiciary to impose their will without the consent of the governed, the gay lobby set up an adversarial condition. Discussing the matter with many liberals, I get the feeling that they aren\’t concerned with due process or the rights of anyone as long as they get what they want, and in examples I have pointed out, Kevin has done little to relieve my anxiety on the matter. I think the most frustrating is that I am making objections based on law, history, and due process, and he seems to either not accept them or think they are trivial. These "poor Mormons" had their church invaded. They were lampooned in front of a state TV audience for voting their conscience. I can\’t help but think that if the same thing had happened to a liberal black church, their would have been outrage to beat the band. From where I\’m sitting, it looks as though the gay lobby is demanding me to bend to their wishes while not giving squat about my rights. Nothing in this conversation has contradicted that impression. For what it\’s worth, I predict that eventually there will be gay marriage in all fifty states. It won\’t make them happy, because they still will not be accepted by many religious people, and that will touch off a continuing series of battles. Home schooling will probably accelerate as a major front. While all this is going on, the polygamy lobby and MLBC will start warming up their lobbies.

  17. Jeffrey says:

    No Name, Gary, or whoever you are… If you go to your profile you can set your name. The link is at the top of every Windows Live page. —————So, now there are shades of precedence? Well, if you can’t even describe a concrete precedent for this, then I am not sure you would be qualified to use it as a matter for determination. This precedent would always be such that it would never be met. That’s why the courts become involved.It seems as though we are arguing for different things. One side is all about what is currently legal and illegal. The other argues about what is right and wrong. What’s legal and illegal change far faster than what’s right and wrong. I’m not talking absolutes. The question is not, “is gay marriage legal?” And if it’s not, that you should do something to change that status to get voters to vote it in if that’s what you want. We know the answer to that. Not only is a vote outcome only an approximation of the will of the majority, but it can be skewed. It’s faulty to think that the will of the people is the same as the results of some election. And, the majority can sometime be a mob. Might does not make right. The real question is, “is it wrong to require a gay man* to marry a woman in a sham marriage as the only avenue for him to enjoy the same legal privileges that any other married couple enjoy?” (*or vice versa) To me, this is simply immoral. Civil unions and marriages in the eyes of god don’t really cut it. Not at least as far as these being equal institutions. But they are a start. And while I disagree with your view of the court’s function in these matters, I wonder how you feel about the courts regarding gun control? Would you be willing to accept a judicial intervention in such cases? Or for that matter, any cases at all? Perhaps something involving a church or taxes? Anyway, this is not the point of this post, so you don’t actually need to answer this. I will assume how you answer is that the courts do have a legal function in these matters. If you don’t think so then let me know.And, the thing is, you aren’t far off the mark saying that getting voters to support this change is the best way to go. Fortunately, because that process can take decades, and I would like to see this in my lifetime, we have other means. And it really doesn’t matter what you think about them. I didn’t like the courts appointing George W. Bush as president. He still was.

  18. Unknown says:

    "One side is all about what is currently legal and illegal. The other argues about what is right and wrong."I don\’t think that I agree with that statement. It seems to me that both sides are arguing about what they believe is right and wrong. "The real question is, “is it wrong to require a gay man* to marry a woman in a sham marriage as the only avenue for him to enjoy the same legal privileges that any other married couple enjoy?” (*or vice versa) "That\’s one way to frame the question. Another way would be to phrase it "Is it right that a minority in a representative democracy should be able to dictate to the majority who they must provide privileges to?" Here is a question I would appreciate an answer to: If polygamists demand that they should be able to have legal marriage status for multiple partners, would it be immoral for us to deny them as well?"To me, this is simply immoral."To me, giving my consent, support and subsidy to an inherently immoral union is immoral. I am "morally" constrained from giving approval to gay marriage, polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage. Since ratification of any or all of those unions will impact my life, despite Kevin\’s denial, I must use whatever legal methods are available to make my will known. I do this without resentment to anyone, and do not participate or support methods outside the law on any side, but I hardly find your definition of "morality" compelling."Not at least as far as these being equal institutions. "Gay marriage was never part of the institution of marriage, which renders the call for equality moot."And while I disagree with your view of the court’s function in these matters, I wonder how you feel about the courts regarding gun control? Would you be willing to accept a judicial intervention in such cases?"Considering that I am not a terrorist, I would have to accept the judgment. I would be truly astonished, however, that a court could limit the right to bear arms considering the clarity of the second amendment. That\’s one place where people on your side of the argument continually do not get it. There is no right to marriage. Until one is adopted, states should have the authority to set their own rules. You seem to place your own moral definitions at an equivalent level to established rights, and that\’s exactly the kind of attitude that allows tyranny to flourish. You also seem to ignore the very real possibility that people who feel entitled to disregard the rights of others have few qualms about tyrannizing each other once they have vanquished the common enemy. The only way to protect the rights and privileges of everyone is to adhere to a strict legal process that allows participation by everyone and does not rely on unelected judges to overrule properly made legislation. You also tend to forget that a time will come when you will not have such firm sway in the courts, and what they have taken from some without consent they will also take from you."I didn’t like the courts appointing George W. Bush as president."I am continually amazed by liberal\’s utter resistance to facts. If that were not the case, you would have known and acknowledged that on every independent recount performed after the Supreme Court decision, Bush was found to be the winner. These recounts were performed by hostile, liberal newspapers, who understandably kept the results very subdued. And I share your upset. When the New Jersey Supreme Court nullified the law which stated that candidates could not be considered for office beyond a certain date to allow the removal of a losing liberal candidate for one that could win. Just terrible when you can\’t rely on the courts to uphold the law which they swore was their first charge, isn\’t it?

  19. Kevin says:

    I am off to class, but George W. Bush was not elected by the majority of Americans. Yet, he was president. I fully understand why, but if majority rules, he should not have been made president…

  20. Jeffrey says:

    “I don\’t think that I agree with that statement. It seems to me that both sides are arguing about what they believe is right and wrong.”Sorry, I interpreted the things you wrote as being legal argument in nature. For example, the “precedent” clause you mentioned but are unable to define.“Here is a question I would appreciate an answer to: If polygamists demand that they should be able to have legal marriage status for multiple partners, would it be immoral for us to deny them as well?”I only state my opinions in these matters, and regardless of what I say, you will throw it back in my face. So, for you, No Name, I will reserve judgment.“To me, giving my consent, support and subsidy to an inherently immoral union is immoral. I am "morally" constrained from giving approval to gay marriage, polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage. Since ratification of any or all of those unions will impact my life, despite Kevin\’s denial, I must use whatever legal methods are available to make my will known. I do this without resentment to anyone, and do not participate or support methods outside the law on any side, but I hardly find your definition of "morality" compelling.”Fair enough. Your permission is, however, not required. Your opinion and mine is good for one vote. Use it wisely. I however, will allow the courts to determine what is “inherent” and what is not. I thought it was pretty clear that my morality statement was just an opinion.“Gay marriage was never part of the institution of marriage, which renders the call for equality moot.”Not yet. Marriage has changed so much. Watch it change more!“Considering that I am not a terrorist, I would have to accept the judgment. I would be truly astonished, however, that a court could limit the right to bear arms considering the clarity of the second amendment.”So, while it really matters not, you would accept it in this case then. Why am I arguing with you? You’re being wishy-washy. In fact, they have upheld these cases despite the will of the majority. Let me twist your arm to accept it. Why would you have to be a terrorist to oppose this decision? Never mind – don’t answer. I don’t need to be exposed to that. and don\’t want to know.“That\’s one place where people on your side of the argument continually do not get it. There is no right to marriage. Until one is adopted, states should have the authority to set their own rules. You seem to place your own moral definitions at an equivalent level to established rights, and that\’s exactly the kind of attitude that allows tyranny to flourish.”I never called it a right. I called it a privilege. I only stated my moral opinion – not an absolute. And you’re sliding down the slope with tyranny.And Bush was appointed. Face facts. I have no concern what so ever if you think the “final tally” justified it or not. It was a judicial decision and had nothing to do with the tally. Are you happy about that No Name of principles?

  21. Unknown says:

    Kevin,You say that you fully understand, but much of this exchange indicates that you do not. We live in a Republic governed by a Constitution. George Bush was properly elected under the laws established by a Constitution ratified by the states. The idea was that laws should govern rather than the whims of men. It breaks my heart to see so many, especially those with the privilege of instructing our youth, that want to turn it into a land governed by the transitory whims of men all over again.Jeffrey,"For example, the “precedent” clause you mentioned but are unable to define."Perhaps you can nail down something more concrete. I only had a few law classes, but my understanding is that a precedent is never really defined in a particular instance until it has been accepted and referenced by a court. (snippy, aren\’t we?)"I only state my opinions in these matters, and regardless of what I say, you will throw it back in my face. So, for you, No Name, I will reserve judgment."Translation: You are a typical gutless liberal, willing to criticize and demonize to get your own way but without the stomach to take a stand that might make you unpopular with someone and/or show your high sounding words are nothing but rank hypocrisy. It isn\’t your judgment that\’s reserved. It\’s your integrity which is lacking."I thought it was pretty clear that my morality statement was just an opinion."Which shows how lightly you take matters of great import."I never called it a right. I called it a privilege."I see. Then do you believe that those who call it a right are "mistaken?" Show some fortitude if you can."I only stated my moral opinion"Which is worth very little considering that I doubt that you could reference what you believe is morally correct in any lasting form. Very convenient when you have to switch positions and leave little trail. Our current President would approve."In fact, they have upheld these cases despite the will of the majority."Even worse – Courts have upheld laws restricting the right to bare arms despite the clear Constitutional language and history, which goes to show how far the leftist ideology of "men over laws" has progressed. "I don’t need to be exposed to that. and don\’t want to know."I\’m sure you do not. Most modern liberals want simply to expound their wisdom and be applauded. They have neither desire, skills, nor patience for substantive debate, which is why the majority simply fall back on name calling. I can understand why liberalism is so strong in the field of education. If too many get through the schools that can think and reason, your cause is doomed."I have no concern what so ever if you think the “final tally” justified it or not. "Our course you don\’t. As I said: Impervious to facts. It is both appropriate and terrible that likely someday you will be judged for crimes real and imagined by someone with exactly your respect for law.

  22. Unknown says:

    Kevin,My apologies for getting rude and personal on your web site. I\’m afraid that once someone shows themself to be gutless and without integrity, I rather lose patience.

  23. Kevin says:

    Hi Gary,You state: "At any rate, gay people are not discharged for being gay." Wrong. People are getting discharged because they state openly they are gay or some gutless people turns them in for being gay. I think you are confused with the term \’gay.\’ I mentioned the case about President Bush because he was not elected by the majority of people. I fully understand how this happened (the electoral college and so on). But he did not have the consent of the majority, but there he was–President. You state: "It breaks my heart to see so many, especially those with the privilege of instructing our youth, that want to turn it into a land governed by the transitory whims of men all over again." What whims of men? The founding fathers set up the electoral college because they didn\’t trust the majority to always pick the correct person. The whims of men (and women) are voting, but in this case the majority does not make the most important decision in our democracy.You state: "I can understand why liberalism is so strong in the field of education. If too many get through the schools that can think and reason, your cause is doomed." Has it ever occured toyou that a liberal way of thinking is the best way to approach education? Has it occured to you that liberal thinkers are educators because that is really the nature of education–liberal thinking, or at least the ability to try and think liberally? I already know the answer, so you don\’t need to answer this. You staste: "I think the most frustrating is that I am making objections based on law, history, and due process, and he seems to either not accept them or think they are trivial." Explain to me what you think \’due process\’ is. I\’ve been saying all along that I have the right to take the vote of the majority to court if I think people are being harmed by something the majorit voted on. This is due process in the United States. Earlier you stated: "I must use whatever legal methods are available to make my will known. I do this without resentment to anyone, and do not participate or support methods outside the law on any side…" Above you say I think I think due process is \’trivial\’ and yet you are espousing the same type of \’due process\’ that I am. Therefore if you think my right to going to court is trivial, then your idea of due process must be trivial as well. No?And I do want to say a little bit about you and Jeffrey: Gary, you said: "They have neither desire, skills, nor patience for substantive debate, which is why the majority simply fall back on name calling." These are your words. But yet you are calling Jeffrey gutless and without integrity. You\’ve called people terrorists. So I would be very careful about stating that the liberals are name-calling, when I haven\’t seen a single liberal here do that. I\’ve only seen you do that.About respect of rights: you state: "They were invaded in a house of worship, which is a protected right." Invasion is a pretty strong word. This technique (of going into churches that were opposed to civil rights) was used when black people were treated unequally. They went into white-only churches and sat inthe pews and prayed. Racists may see this as an \’invasion\’ but black people cetainly didn\’t. Besides, can you point me to some information on what you think was an \’invasion\’ of a church? You state: "I also seriously doubt you have any idea how much of the money used in the effort came from church\’s themselves and how much came from private donations from church members." Fine–enlighten me on these facts.You seriously misunderstand the whole nature of the race issue in this country. You state: "High expectations and high standards are what works, along with teachers will to make them work with proven curriculum and no excuses." You can talk until you are blue in the face about high expectations and high standards, but when African Americans have a much lower income than white Americans, talking is going to do no good when these kids don\’t have money to spend on paper, pencils or shoes to wear. There are inequalities built into the history of this country that are finally being dismantled. Have you looked at the recent high school scores? Why is it that Latino and African American students are consistently scoring lower than their white counterparts? Do you think it is because the white students are so much smarter than their black or Latino classmates? Or could their be another reason??? Therefore if we make highschool scores the only factor into getting into college, soon we would have only whites at college (and imagine how equal that would make all of us–the only people who would benefit would be white people). You state: "your explanation of your liking for quotas above definitely shows that you do not believe in equal opportunity…" You think from a few sentences you read here that you can make a declaration like that! Quite the opposite is true, but clearly nothing I say will convince you otherwise. I teach about the ugly history of this country. I teach about how the U.S. government treated people like animals. I teach how the U.S. government capturered territory from Mexico (like Texas, Arizona, Utah and California). I teach about how the U.S. government treated the Native Americans. You can\’t possibly teach something like that without believing that all people should be treated equally. But as I said, there is nothing I can say to make you see the truth. So be it. Lots of people thought the world was flat–but that didn\’t change reality. The earth was still round despite all the teaching and the persecutions that stated otherwise.

  24. Jeffrey says:

    No Name troll – your post lacks any significant substance, and resorting to name calling and character bashing is typical of your ilk. Fail. You lose.

  25. Unknown says:

    "land governed by the transitory whims of men all over again." The "whims of men" in this case is instead of laws established and ratified. Your insistence in using the courts to override the correct representative process, for example. Refer to amendment ten of the Constitution. Those powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states and the people. This should include marriage, and people exercise their powers through the representatives, not the courts. You know you can\’t persuade the representatives, so you find judges that will override the legislative process. "The whims of men (and women) are voting, but in this case the majority does not make the most important decision in our democracy."Absolutely right. The decision is governed by laws, which were approved and ratified by the people through their representatives."But he did not have the consent of the majority, but there he was–President."But he was elected using a process that did, and that\’s my point. You are trying to get what you want through a means that bypasses the process that was ratified. That\’s the same type of thing that Hitler and other dictators resort to when they know that they can\’t convince people of the truth of their cause, but they can succeed with people who are willing to ignore the process and allow it."People are getting discharged because they state openly they are gay or some gutless people turns them in for being gay. "No, people are being discharged for violating the terms of their enlistment contract. "Has it ever occured toyou that a liberal way of thinking is the best way to approach education?"Of course I considered it. I am an open minded person with a great respect for what works. The problem with liberal methods is that they do not work. Every study shows English immersion is better than bi-lingual ed for learning English in American schools and overall success, but liberals still insist on bi-lingual ed. Every study shows that phonics is better than whole word for learning reading, and liberals still deny it. Every study shows that content rich and teacher directed is better than student discovery or whatever else it is called. In short, liberals continue to push everything that doesn\’t work because it suits their purpose, not because it works, and it is easier to stir up people for causes than to actually teach people to be literate and numerate. Show me some peer-reviewed studies about how the methods that liberals push are shown to be superior to traditional ones. Please. Let\’s discuss it."These are your words. But yet you are calling Jeffrey gutless and without integrity. "And I stand by that. Until he is willing to answer the question straight out and go on the record then he is gutless. At least you say what you believe, though I have yet to see much in the way of factual support. "About respect of rights: you state: "They were invaded in a house of worship, which is a protected right." Invasion is a pretty strong word. "Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the opinion noted above after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses. The following incidents of vandalism have occurred: * Orangeville, California. Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted \’No on 8\’ on the meetinghouse.[19][20] * Arapahoe County, Colorado. A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.[21] * Utah. As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.[22] * Farmington, Utah. Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted \’Nobody\’s born a bigot\’ on a meetinghouse.[23] * Sacramento, California. Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.[24] * Olympia, Washington. A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." [25] The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.[26] * Ukiah, California A LDS chapel was spray painted with the words ""separate church and state Prop. 8 cult." [27] Vandalism at other Christian places of worship * San Francisco, California. The Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church was spray painted with black swastikas and the words "Ratzinger" and "Niederauer." [28] ThreatsDeath threats * Fresno, CA The Pastor of the Cornerstone Church and Fresno Mayor were sent death threats. [29] Harassment * Palm Springs, CA Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally. * Los Angeles, CA Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, \’You better watch your back.\’" [30] * San Francisco, CA A Prop 8 supporter writes a letter to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle. According to the editorial page editor, "Within hours, the intimidation game was on. Because his real name and city were listed – a condition for publication of letters to The Chronicle – opponents of Prop. 8 used Internet search engines to find the letter writer\’s small business, his Web site (which included the names of his children and dog), his phone number and his clients. And they posted that information in the "Comments" section of SFGate.com – urging, in ugly language, retribution against the author\’s business and its identified clients." [31] "Fine–enlighten me on these facts."No, you are making the claim. You enlighten me. I am stating my belief that it was individual citizens pursuing their political rights. Can you prove me wrong?"Have you looked at the recent high school scores? Why is it that Latino and African American students are consistently scoring lower than their white counterparts? Do you think it is because the white students are so much smarter than their black or Latino classmates? Or could their be another reason???"Darn straight there is another reason. It\’s because of a culture that considers achievement as betrayal of their race. I can find lots of sites where low income minority students and English learners achieve superior results. The difference is that they are told they can succeed and it is expected that they will and the family supports it. This liberal BS garbage that their problems stem from inequality is the most poisonous thing that can be done to children, and yet liberal politicians continue to make a cottage industry out of it. Go looking. Start with JoanneJacobs.com, and see what happens when you separate liberal ideology from education. You might learn something.Got to go now. I\’ll poke holes in the rest of your arguments later. As for Jeffrey\’s comments, until he answers substantive questions, he no longer merits direct replies.

  26. Kevin says:

    Hi Gary,You state: “That\’s the same type of thing that Hitler and other dictators resort to when they know that they can\’t convince people of the truth of their cause, but they can succeed with people who are willing to ignore the process and allow it.” I don’t understand this. How is going to the State Supreme Court of California the same as what Hitler did? Is it not legal in the State of California to appeal? Are you telling me that to appeal is unconstitutional? Or is it illegal? Or is it that you would just wish that gays and lesbians would accept the vote of the majority and just be quiet and go back to the closet and listen to their ‘betters’? Do you think all Propositions passed by the majority should be untouchable and forever the law of the state, without any grounds for appeal?You state: “You are trying to get what you want through a means that bypasses the process that was ratified.” Do you honestly believe that the court system should be abolished? Or that the right of appeal should be abolished when the majority votes? Is not the course system ratified as well? You state: “No, people are being discharged for violating the terms of their enlistment contract. “ O.k., tell me what their terms of contract are, and then we can talk about why they are getting discharged.You state: “Every study shows English immersion…Every study shows that phonics…Every study shows that content rich and teacher directed is better…” If that is really the case, then why are you even asking me to show you some peer-reviewed studies? If every study ever done in human history shows this, then you know there isn’t a single one that shows the opposite. I am just a liberal democrat college professor—and what exactly do you teach and how many years have you been teaching?About your list of harassments and vandalism—do you honestly believe that the Yes on 8 Christians are innocent? That they never spray-painted hateful things on property owned by gays and lesbians? Or that property was torn down? Or that they harassed gays and lesbians? I am a victim of some of this. I had my No on 8 signs torn down—that were on my own property. I was harassed by a group of Christians who were standing on a street corner holding Yes on 8 signs. My crime? I was brave enough to stand with them with my No on 8 sign. I was yelled at, called names and pushed out of the way. I have received mail at my personal mailing address because I had the audacity to write a letter to the San Francisco Chronicle about Prop. 8. And I am only one person out of many who dared to stand up to the Yes on 8 people. Do I approve of harassment and vandalism and killing? Of course not. I do totally approve of civil disobedience, however.About education: I also looked up the website you referred me to. Interesting, I have to say. I read her post on “Order, Discipline and Success” with great interest. This group that has just received $98 million dollars—the organization that received this large amount of money is the United Neighborhood Organization and according to its own website, is “Modeled on the Saul Alinsky style of community organizing, we sought to build grass-roots leadership within Chicago\’s Hispanic neighborhoods to organize for power and address local issues such as prevalent street violence, the Hispanic dropout rate and overcrowding in schools.” I really didn’t think you would be supporting a community organizing group (I’m sure Christine at TalkWisdom would jump through the roof if she heard you were supporting this type of education by way of a community organizing group—from Chicago no less! And even worse, the home of ObamaLIAR!). As I said earlier, money can make the difference with education. $98 million dollars will make a great difference, especially compared to schools that won’t get a similar influx of this amount of money. Reading the information at the weblink she provided (Education Week), I have to say some of that wouldn’t be my style of teaching. And reading further down the article, there are some who disagree as well. And further, this English immersion isn’t total English immersion. If you read the article, you will see that the students are allowed a period or two to speak Spanish at school. I also just visited the official website for this charter school and there at the bottom is an ad for their “5K Race for the Dead” and guess what is says? UNO 5K Carrera De Los Muertos” and in very small letters it is written in English (in a font I can barely read). So much for ‘total immersion.’ You said: “You might learn something.” Actually, you were right. I did learn quite a bit. You state: "It\’s because of a culture that considers achievement as betrayal of their race." What??? You are telling me that an African American is told that he/she should not be successful because the race as a whole would be betrayed if that happens? This assumes that the African American race believes that they are not successful and don\’t wish to be. The same for Latinos. Wow. You apparently have been educated far, far differently than I have…You state: "I\’ll poke holes in the rest of your arguments later." So far I have seen any holes poked…So getting back to the original post: do you think every time a group wants to do something that it should ask permission of the majority? I wonder what the majority had to say when black people were allowed to have rights…

  27. Unknown says:

    "I don’t understand this. How is going to the State Supreme Court of California the same as what Hitler did? Is it not legal in the State of California to appeal? Are you telling me that to appeal is unconstitutional?"Oh no. Going to the state supreme court is completely legal and constitutional, right up until the point that the court no longer acts according with the law. However, there were a number of Fascist type actions that occurred along the way and after. For starters, since marriage was not specified as a right in the Constitution, the Supreme Court should have had no standing to touch it, yet they did. Afterward, when the people lobbied for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage (prop 8) the legislature and administration repeatedly ignored the laws and procedures to put it on the ballot. Organizations such as BAMN continued to pile up lawsuits against prop 8 strictly for the purpose of keeping it off the ballot. I can think of little more fascist than suing to prevent people from even being able to vote on an idea. As soon as the measure passed, it became part of Constitutional Law, which meant that the Supreme Court was honored to uphold the amendment until it was properly defeated by the legislature and yet they still stayed it for further appeal which, itself, should legally have been beyond their reach. When there is a concerted effort by people to block people from having access to expressing their will, I repeat: That is the essence of Hitleresque fascism.""Do you honestly believe that the court system should be abolished? Or that the right of appeal should be abolished when the majority votes? Is not the course system ratified as well?"You have gone off the deep end again. Please write a question which refers to what I actually said and I will answer it."I am just a liberal democrat college professor—and what exactly do you teach and how many years have you been teaching?"Get off your high horse. Show me some studies please. Show me anything that says what you are pursuing is more effective. I know that liberal teachers are great at making noise and stirring up social activism. The problem is you were hired to educate. Not so good at that. "About your list of harassments and vandalism—do you honestly believe that the Yes on 8 Christians are innocent? "I never claimed that. I claimed, quite correctly, that those opposing prop 8 were guilty of terrorist type action. I believe I have made my case. If you are trying to argue that they should be excused because they have suffered similar wrongs, I disagree, but in no case can you deny this: They engaged in a campaign of intimidation and terrorism against people for simply exercising their right to vote. Show me any evidence that the people who were targeted by these thugs were guilty of the crimes you say. You can\’t, so what you are basically saying is that we are no worse than the worst of them. That still makes you fascist thugs. Deal with it."I had my No on 8 signs torn down—that were on my own property. I was harassed by a group of Christians who were standing on a street corner holding Yes on 8 signs. My crime? I was brave enough to stand with them with my No on 8 sign."And I hope that you saw them and pressed charges and everyone involved in illegal actions against you was caught and punished. And none of this reduces the seriousness of the illegal actions perpetrated against the people who voted yes on 8. If your goal is to be just as bad, you set a lousy goal, but it still excuses nothing.You did a nice job of parsing out the website listings and highlighting only what you wanted to, but like most liberals you still have a tendency to ignore what you disagree with, factual or not. Fact: Poor and minority students are succeeding every day by schools employing discipline, phonics, and immersion. These schools regularly outperform bi-lingual schools regardless of extra money.Fact – Liberals consistently fight against what works in favor of race pandering programs which excuse bad behavior and deny personal responsibility. Additionally, through the teacher\’s unions, they resist every proposal which requires accountability or punishes inferior teaching performance. Fact – Some schools with the highest per student expenditures have the worst performance (e.g., Washington, DC), while poor school districts employing proven methods regularly attain success.So again: Get off your high horse and stop defending a system with a greater interest in ideology than education. Unlike our current president, I really mean it when I say that I\’ll take ideas from anywhere that work because unlike educators I work in a profession that has to produce success or perish. For too long the reply to every problem for teachers has been give us more money. No more. Start giving results."You are telling me that an African American is told that he/she should not be successful because the race as a whole would be betrayed if that happens?"I am telling you that prominent conservative African Americans are decried as sell-outs, uncle toms, etc. I\’m sure that you have at least had the opportunity to see the "Aunt Jemimah" version of Condi Rice and the "House Boy" images of Colin Powell? Have you perhaps heard how Bill Cosby has been decried for presenting the message of personal responsibility in the African American community, of giving up the victim mantle?And from: http://www.nber.org/digest/jan06/w11334.htmlIn An Empirical Analysis of "Acting White" (NBER Working Paper No. 11334), co-authors Roland Fryer and Paul Torelli find that black and Hispanic students who earn high grades face social costs in terms of their popularity. Fryer and Torelli define "acting white" as any "statistically significant racial differences in the relationship between [student] popularity and grades." Participants in student focus groups say that a number of behaviors are condemned as "acting white," including enrollment in honors or advanced placement classes, speaking proper English, wearing the wrong clothes from the wrong stores, or wearing shorts in the winter.To quantify "acting white," the authors construct a popularity index using data from the Addhealth survey, a nationally representative sample of 90,118 students in grades 7 through 12 in the school year 1994-5. Addhealth interviewed the same students in 1995, 1996, and 2002. Along with collecting information on parental education, socioeconomic status, school characteristics, and grade point average, the survey asked students to list up to five friends of each sex, ordered from their best friends to more casual acquaintances. Fryer and Torelli\’s popularity index assigns popularity to a student based the number of students who list them as a friend, weighted by the popularity of each student. The weighting scheme ensures that if two students (A and B) have the same number of people who list them as friends, then student A will have a higher popularity index if his friends are more popular, meaning that more people list them as friends.The resulting popularity indexes demonstrate that "the relationship between social status and achievement is categorically different between racial groups, a difference that is robust to changes in specifications, data sub-samples, and definitions of social status or achievement." At a GPA of roughly 2.5, racial differences begin to emerge, and Hispanic students lose popularity rapidly. Popularity peaks at a GPA of about 3.5 for black students. Whites continue to gain popularity as their grades increase. The social cost of "acting white" is more severe for black males than for black females. It is larger for blacks in public schools, but nonexistent for blacks in private schools, "a finding that may partially explain why black kids in private schools do especially well." Finally, the burden imposed for "acting white" is greater for students with more interracial contact. Blacks in more segregated schools "incur less of a tradeoff between popularity and achievement." The toll for "acting white" is "particul arly salient among high achievers and those in schools with more interracial contact."

  28. Unknown says:

    "This assumes that the African American race believes that they are not successful and don\’t wish to be. "No, this recognizes the reality that good liberals and democrats and members of their own culture will stigmatize them if they pursue success in a way that works, and the reason is because of the race mongers who keep hatred and resentment stirred up for their own power. News flash: Most Asian immigrants come over with no more power or resources than a poor person, but those who work and study flourish. Their culture encourages them to succeed. Liberal ideology tells them almost from the cradle that they are victims who will never have a fair chance. As soon as they buy into that, as soon as they become convinced that they can\’t succeed, then many give up. And that\’s one of the big differences between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe that everyone can overcome and succeed. If my daughter tells me she is being picked on by a teacher or that the grades aren\’t fair, then I tell her to work harder. Too many black leaders tell their communities to go to courts. Whatever else they may be good for, the courts aren\’t going to educate their kids. That\’s going to take hard work by the kids and teachers willing to adopt programs that work."You apparently have been educated far, far differently than I have…"Darn straight. I\’ve been taught that if people keep working, they will succeed. "So getting back to the original post: do you think every time a group wants to do something that it should ask permission of the majority? I wonder what the majority had to say when black people were allowed to have rights…"If they are proposing a new law or substantial change to existing policy, then the permission of the majority is not relevant in the US. What is relevant is passing the policy using the process established by the Constitution. In that sense, when any of us asks for anything from the government, we all "ask permission." The LGBT movement still has not met that standard with regard to marriage. They are still whining, claiming that they have lost a right or privilege which was never theirs to begin with. With regards to black people having rights, in this country their rights were recognized using the proper Constitutional procedure. Had that not been the case, then their lives might have only been marginally better than those who remained in Africa, rather than black America becoming the fourth largest economy in the world. Of course, that economy is powered mostly by those who believe they succeed. There are also the community organizers, but their major contribution seems to be getting great mortgage deals and giving kickbacks to their slum lord friends once they make it to the Senate or White House.

  29. Unknown says:

    As for your note: "I am just a liberal democrat college professor—and what exactly do you teach and how many years have you been teaching?"All of the classes I have taught have been in military schools. But guess what? The people who got out of them knew the material. I don\’t really care what diplomas or credentials you or any teacher have. The only thing I care about is "Does it work?" I was having lunch with a liberal friend of mine one time, also a teacher. And he made the exact same point: He was a teacher, therefore I should defer to him. He was wrong. If I\’m paying for the education, I decide when the teacher is doing a satisfactory job. If teachers do a great job, they should be commensurately rewarded. If they do a lousy job they should be fired, but as the customer I need defer to no one. It\’s that kind of academic arrogance that has allowed so many public schools to crash into dung heaps. Either live up to the title "Teacher" or get out of the profession. Perhaps if they start raising standards again, they\’ll regain some of the respect that teachers had when I was growing up.

  30. Kevin says:

    Gary: you state: "there were a number of Fascist type actions" I was waiting for the F word to show up. It seems to be fairly popular in the circles you run in (even though it has no connection to reality)."The problem is you were hired to educate. Not so good at that." It seems I have hit a nerve. Once again, you must be gazing into a false crysal ball. You act as if you know me–but you don\’t, so stop pretending and making all these bizarre statements about who you think I am. "They engaged in a campaign of intimidation and terrorism against people for simply exercising their right to vote. " Hmm. I seem to remember a little incident where the ringleaders of Prop 8 sent out a blackmail letter to some companies that supported equality. So you don\’t need to tell me about terrorist tactics. I\’ve seen them from a group who masquerade as Christians. "If my daughter tells me she is being picked on by a teacher or that the grades aren\’t fair, then I tell her to work harder." I certainly hope you told her that when she said she was too white for scholarships.Oh, and you asked me to read that article. I did, but you don\’t like what I learned from it. Did you bother reading the articles you asked me to read? What more do you expect from me? "He was a teacher, therefore I should defer to him." Where have I said you should defer to me? That is ridiculous. I don\’t flaunt my education with anyone. I also refer to defer to someone just because they are convinced they are correct. I have to see proof of this correctness–and I could care less if that person has a Ph.D. or a first grade education. You seem to have more of a problem with my education for some reason. You ask me to read articles. I did. However, you have a problem with me understanding the very same material you ask me to read! My guess is that you didn\’t read it, since clearly what you were telling me doesn\’t quite match with the articles. That isn\’t really my problem."If I\’m paying for the education, I decide when the teacher is doing a satisfactory job." And how exactly to do you decide that? If you fail an exam because you didn\’t understand the material it is the fault of the teacher? If you are unhappy hearing what really happened in history then this is the fault of the teacher? Sure, there are some bad teachers out there. But there are also some good ones. I believe I am one of the good ones, and I have the student evaluations to prove it. "…but as the customer I need defer to no one." Ah, so there is the problem. Haven\’t you heard that sometimes the customer isn\’t right, especially if they demand to be treated like they are right when they clearly are not? To tell them they are right in this case just adds to their problem of acting like spoiled children. By the way, my students come out of my classes able to read and understand what they are reading They come out of my class able to write a good paper and create good arguments (even though I may disagree with their argument). They come out of my class with a better understanding of what happened in history and to see trends by looking at a number of different civilizations. I am pretty proud of them, if I do say so myself. I think my students would agree–at least they seem to be pretty happy at the end of the semester when they fill out their evalution sheets that critique my performance as a teacher. I\’m not here to teach you anything. I put up a video that I thought my friends and family would like and could relate to. You don\’t like the video and you stated why. I replied and your replied and I replied and so on. I haven\’t made any accusations about your character, despite all of your name calling. You are one of those people who won\’t be persuaded about gay marriage because your religious views prohibit it. This is the United States and you are free to voice your religious views, even on my blog if you wish. I won\’t stop you. I believe fully in free speech, including my own right to free speech. I believe that people have the right to vote the way they want to–but I know my rights as a US citizen and I know what the courts are for. The day the courts are taken out of the appeal process is the day your dreaded fascism will become a reality.

  31. Unknown says:

    I think I have hit the nerve actually. You have hit the point where you simply deflect questions, because you know that evidence shows that the positions you support are ideological and not in keeping with effective practices. Much the way the you support unions, despite their harmful effects on school systems, the automotive manufacturers, etc. No, I don\’t you very well, but I know what you defend. Your writing makes that very clear, even as your arguments contradict themselves (the customer isn\’t always write, my students write good critiques for me, I am sensitive to people\’s rights, the mormons were only getting what they deserve, has it ever occurred to you that liberal teaching methods are best, no I can\’t provide any evidence of that, I don\’t believe that minorities are inferior, they just can\’t make it without special help). "You are one of those people who won\’t be persuaded about gay marriage because your religious views prohibit it. "And again with your liberal arrogance. You state your indignation that I act as though I know you, yet you seem to feel that you have me all figured out. While I have mentioned my moral objections, about 90+ percent of my objections have been to your procedural facism. And if you don\’t like the word being applied, then tell me how I am incorrect. But you can\’t, can you? Your whole argument is bound up in your feeling of moral superiority which allows you to justify anything. And some day you will be begging for people like me, who actually respect rights and process, to save you from people like you. Considering the rapid growth of Islam and their general view on rights of homosexuality, you may come across that day much sooner than you think.

  32. Kevin says:

    Gary, You really haven\’t been asking questions, so it is hard to deflect a statement you declare, which is then dressed up as a question. I call that a rhetorical question. You call it a question. There is a difference. And \’positions that are ideological\’? You are a Christian, Gary. You can\’t get too much more ideological. Your reasoning against gay marriage is based on the Bible. If it isn\’t, tell me outright that the position of the Bibile is not at all something you are concerned with when it comes to your position on gay marriage. Tell me outright that your religious belief system isn\’t dictating your position. You state: " you support unions, despite their harmful effects on school systems, the automotive manufacturers, etc." As I said before, you don\’t really know your history (and where have I mentioned unions in this post?–you are certainly flying all over the place here). But don\’t defer to me–look it up yourself. The only harmful effects of the unions is on the big businesses that try to make trillions off the backs fo their workers. You are a product of the union system. Every heard of the 5 day work week? Or a 40 hour/week workweek? If not, you can thank the unions. How about the wage you earn? Do you think you got that wage magically? Nope.You state: "But you can\’t, can you?" No, Gary, I can\’t. But you already know that. "…feeling of moral superiority…" It is hard to feel morally superior when I am not part of the morally superior correct religion. "And some day you will be begging for people like me…" Well, when that happens make sure to remind me that you told me it would happen. "Considering the rapid growth of Islam and their general view on rights of homosexuality…" Ah, the dreaded Islamic threat. They are nearly as bad as the fascists. Yes, I should thank all the Christians for voting Yes on 8, because in reality, that saved me from the rise of Islam. I get it now. As I said, you don\’t understand the law. You seem to think that the majority rules, despite what the majority may decide. I think what you are most upset about here is that one day the court will overturn all of the laws (which is part of the American system of government) the Christian majority have passed to keep the glbt population \’in their place.\’ But I think you are most upset about is that your majority view will no longer be the majority view. But don\’t worry–I\’ll make sure your religious views are protected as stated in the U.S. Constitution.

  33. Unknown says:

    "You really haven\’t been asking questions, so it is hard to deflect a statement you declare, which is then dressed up as a question."Fair enough. Here are some questions point blank:If people start claiming that polygamy is also marriage and they have a right to it, is society also obligated to accept that?Same question with regard to incest between adults.You stated words to the effect that due to their history in this country, African Americans were at a great disadvantage and should benefit from quotas and presumably other advantages to help level the field. I gave you a website with examples that completely disproved that assertion, yet you chose to site ones which somewhat supported you. Why did you not acknowledge that your statement was demonstrably false since it is easily shown?You stated that you were unaware of differences in standards or grades required of whites that were higher than those required for admission of minorities. I gave you evidence that was the case. You did not acknowledge it. Why?You stated that you had not shown indifference to the property rights of Mormons. I gave clear indication that you had. You did not acknowledge it. Instead you defended yourself as a victim. Why not acknowledge the truth?You decried my use of the term fascist. I provided evidence that groups you associate with use the same tactics of intimidation and preventing people from voting exactly as the fascists in Europe did early in the last century. You did not acknowledge that either. Why?"As I said before, you don\’t really know your history (and where have I mentioned unions in this post?–you are certainly flying all over the place here)."You have little idea what I know and do not know. For example, I know that the people who accomplished the fine work that you credit unions with are long gone. And I will certainly admit there were some great causes they addressed. But the unions you support do don\’t that. More questions:True or false: Union contracts were responsible for keeping automotive workers at or above 90% pay for up to three years while being idled, contributing to bankruptcy of the major automotive companies?True or False: Union contracts with similar provisions are responsible for keeping thousands of teachers on the payroll in California each year for reading magazines since it is too difficult to fire them?True or False: Union contracts in California cities have raised the cost of labor and retirement benefits so high that entire cities are declaring bankruptcy just to be able to nullify them?True or False: In California there are jobs that you can\’t even hold unless you are willing to pay money to a union? Doesn\’t it strike you as odd that an organization which claims to stand up for workers actively seeks legislation that gives people no choice about joining? Doesn\’t that sound kind of fascist to you?"You are a Christian, Gary. You can\’t get too much more ideological."Consider the liberal propensity for ignoring facts it disagrees with, I find that statement highly doubtful."Your reasoning against gay marriage is based on the Bible. "Absolutely correct. It is also irrelevant to the discussion. Facts are persistent. Regardless of my motivation, the facts that I site about your corruption of legal principle and procedure are correct. "As I said, you don\’t understand the law. "Yes, you continue to say it as though repeating it endlessly will make it true. Nevertheless, you can\’t really site any facts or evidence that I am wrong. "But I think you are most upset about is that your majority view will no longer be the majority view. "That reminds me of another study that I read about: They asked conservatives to predict how liberals would act in a particular situation. They were pretty good at it. Then they reversed the situation, and the libs bombed. You don\’t understand squat about me. You would do a lot better to just stick to what I write. "But don\’t worry–I\’ll make sure your religious views are protected as stated in the U.S. Constitution.I\’m sure I can count on that as much as I can count on your general knowledge and honesty with regard to Constitutional principles. You are too hung up on the picture of England during the industrial revolution. I\’m far more concerned about the out of work people of Detroit who were sold a union bill of goods. They raised the price of labor so high that America couldn\’t compete. The results were predictable and tragic.

  34. Kevin says:

    "If people start claiming that polygamy is also marriage and they have a right to it, is society also obligated to accept that?" The funny thing about your question is that this is the totally predictable route that people who are opposed to gay marriage follow. Next question will be: what if my dog wants to marry me? Should we have a law that protects that \’union\’? But back to polygamy. Polygamy is an age old heterosexual problem. You can probably get a better answer if you asked the Mormons about that. How about I answer it like this: if people started to claim that black men should be able to marry white women, and they have a right to it, is society obligated to accept it? The answer is yes. But whether or not society accepts it is a totally different issue. Many people today are still not accepting of interracial marriages. Getting to polygamy: if we come to a point in our history where multiple males want to marry more than one female (or the other way around) then we will have to do what we have done in California–vote on it. Isn\’t that the true democracy? And if the polygamists do not like the outcome, they will have every right to appeal to the State Supreme Court, stating that their civil rights were denied them. Then it will be up to the court. If the court says yes, it must be allowed, then the people will take matters into their own hands (and they have every right to do that) to put it to the majority vote again. If the polygamists lose, they can then appeal to federal court, and if they lose, they can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. I would give the same answer for incest. If enough people can be found to vote for it, then what else can be done in a democracy? Or would you rather deny people the right to vote on it?"I gave you a website with examples that completely disproved that assertion, yet you chose to site ones which somewhat supported you. Why did you not acknowledge that your statement was demonstrably false since it is easily shown?" This statement doesn\’t make sense. All you did was find a site that supported your idea, and I found one that supported mine (and I even looked at the website you asked me specifically to read!!). Does that make you the correct one and me the wrong one? No, what this shows is that you have a keen desire to be right, even though there are always exceptions. "You stated that you were unaware of differences in standards or grades required of whites that were higher than those required for admission of minorities." I looked at the website, and oddly enough, I did not see a place where it specifically stated that white males had to achieve higher grades to get into college. I didn\’t see it. And even if I did see it, then I have to weigh that evidence along side of other pieces of evidence. I don\’t have to automatically accept what I read as being true. You can do that, and you are free to do that, but that is not how I think.You state: "You stated that you had not shown indifference to the property rights of Mormons. I gave clear indication that you had. You did not acknowledge it. Instead you defended yourself as a victim. Why not acknowledge the truth?" I suggest you reread my earlier statement: "Do I approve of harassment and vandalism and killing? Of course not." There is the truth, but it doesn\’t fit in with what you what to hear. "You decried my use of the term fascist. I provided evidence that groups you associate with use the same tactics of intimidation and preventing people from voting exactly as the fascists in Europe did early in the last century. You did not acknowledge that either. Why?" I have seen no evidence whatsoever to show that people were prevented from voting for Yes on 8. So that answers why I didn\’t acknowledge it. Both sides, as I clearly stated, are not innocent. Gays and lesbians have been harassed by Christians for a heck of a lot longer than the other way around. It doesn\’t make it right, but since you want to discuss facts…What you really want me to state that the Yes on 8 people are the only victims in this mess. They aren\’t and I will never, ever acknowledge that. Period. "True or false:" Why are you asking me questions like this? Really, they are rhetorical. You state: ""Your reasoning against gay marriage is based on the Bible. "Absolutely correct." But then you go on to say it is irrelevant. I don\’t believe that, and I doubt you do as well. Your whole argument against gay and lesbian marriage is based ont he bible. From that belief you then go on all these other tangents. But there is nothing I can do or say that will change your mind, but your Bible is what eveything rests on. "the facts that I site about your corruption of legal principle and procedure are correct." You haven\’t given facts. Fact–I can appeal to a court. Why do you deny this? It is plain as day. You just don\’t want a belief that you voted for challenged legally in court. That is the real issue here. "Then they reversed the situation, and the libs bombed." Hmm. It is too bad that I didn\’t take part in the study. You seem to be following a pattern I have seen many times and it is a pattern I have come to expect from those who don\’t like the idea that gays and lesbians are getting married.

  35. Unknown says:

    "All you did was find a site that supported your idea, and I found one that supported mine (and I even "Getting to polygamy: if we come to a point in our history where multiple males want to marry more than one female (or the other way around) then we will have to do what we have done in California–vote on it. Isn\’t that the true democracy?"Then it sounds like you are agreeing that yes, you need permission.""I gave you a website with examples that completely disproved that assertion, yet you chose to site ones which somewhat supported you. Why did you not acknowledge that your statement was demonstrably false since it is easily shown?""You can do that, and you are free to do that, but that is not how I think."Of course not since it disagrees with your preconceived notions of minorities as victims."Gays and lesbians have been harassed by Christians for a heck of a lot longer than the other way around. "According to old testament histories, gays have been threatening to rape people before there even were Christians. "But there is nothing I can do or say that will change your mind, but your Bible is what eveything rests on. "As I said, that is irrelevant. My arguments are sound and factual. All you have is your own self interest.As expected, I ask my questions, and you answer the questions that you give instead, or don\’t answer at all. Best stay in your protected academic world. In the world where truth and results matter, and standing blindly by ideology at the expense of others has consequences. The next time you read about poor minorities, I hope it disturbs you that you and your ilk are feeding them the intellectual garbage that is keeping them poor and in want. Not that you care, as long as you keep your protected academic job and guilt people into giving you what you want. That, or send out your union thugs to prevent them from exercising their rights. Adieu Kevin.If you state that minorities must be given special aid to prosper and even one counterexample is found, then yes, that makes you wrong. Because what can be done once can be repeated. And despite that, liberals insist that they must give special advantages to minorities to "level the field" or make up for past wrongs. False. If you can\’t admit that, then you are intellectually dishonest. If you continue to pursue discriminatory policies based on a false premise, you are worse.

  36. Kevin says:

    "Then it sounds like you are agreeing that yes, you need permission." No, why don\’t you copy out the rest of what I have said. "According to old testament histories, gays have been threatening to rape people before there even were Christians. " And according to Old Testament \’histories\’ there were fathers who wouldn\’t hesitate to throw their daughters out to a city full of men who want to rape them. Oh, and this is if you consider a story in a religious text real history. Gary, you just can\’t handle the fact that there are other facts out there. You see, that is the true characteristic of a good education–the ability to see that there is more than one answer to a problem. Your problem is that you MUST be correct in all things in which your chosen religious text has told you is correct. If you ever go against that text, then you lose your position in that religious world. All of your facts and are arguments revolve around the Bible, and this is something you conveniently choose to ignore by saying it is irrelevant. But your positions can\’t be separated from your religious views. But my views are based on the law, which you don\’t understand. You fail to acknowledge that there is an appeal process. Talk about fascist ideas–not allowing a group of people to appeal a decision by a majority that has clearly harmed them is not an American way of thinking. "I hope it disturbs you that you and your ilk are feeding them the intellectual garbage that is keeping them poor and in want." What you are really saying is don\’t teach them their history. If that is intellectual garbage for you , then so be it. It sounds like you need a good spoonful of that garbage yourself–it won\’t taste good going down and will certainly give you a bellyache, but sometimes it has to be like that. "That, or send out your union thugs to prevent them from exercising their rights." Gary, I think it is time for you to go to bed. Clearly you aren\’t thinking correctly. This sentence doesn\’t make sense. In reality teaching them their history is teaching them to exercise their rights. So I have no clue what \’union thugs\’ you are referring to that you think I have control over. It is more laughable that you think I would want to try and stop them from exercising their rights! I can\’t even guess what you mean by that. By the way, did you catch the amazing speech at the Human Rights Campaign by our president tonight? I am just glad I am on the right side of history.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s