Be Courageous - - Support Prop 8

[_Inconceivable]

My gay partners and employees know that I support Proposition 8.

Bob Crockett
rcrocket@gmail.com

Bob (not that there's anything wrong with that), you might have a different opinion once you've sown your wild oats.

You marry who you date, you know.

[_Sethbag]

Ah, yes, I must think all judicial decisions are an unwarranted exercise of raw judicial power. Uh, no. However, the vast majority of the controversial ones are (e.g., Roe, cannot execute rapists, Lawrence, etc.).

Ah, I get it. What you really are saying is that the court decisions that you don't like personally are the ones that constitute an unwarranted exercise of raw judicial power. Now I understand you perfectly.

By the way, you oppose Lawrence? Do you believe it's really within the government's purview to enter into a private citizen's home and arrest consenting adults for having sex the "wrong" way? This is a serious question. Given the idea of freedom and liberty, and limited reach of government into the lives of the citizenry, do you honestly believe that it's the government's right to dictate what parts of each others' bodies consenting adults may touch or penetrate in the privacy of their own homes? You really believe that?

The 14th amendment was ratified with race based legal discrimination in mind. In fact, the court distinguished its action in Loving with other cases that upheld discrimination because they were not race based.

So do you support the Supreme Court of the United States telling a state that they cannot define which people can and cannot marry within their state? Was Loving correctly, or incorrectly decided?

Do you believe that Griswold was correctly decided? I'm just curious, but I'd appreciate an answer, if you don't mind.

In the latter, there are good reasons to restrict it to one man and one woman (e.g., because it takes a man and a woman to produce children, etc.). Even if you disagree with the state's reason, it is not so far fetched as to merit being overturned wholesale by the judiciary.

Out of curiosity, do you believe the (anti-polygamy aspects of) Morril Anti-Bigamy Act was constitutional? The Edmunds Act, making polygamy a felony?

I'm just curious, because you seem to be just fine with the idea of the feds, and the states, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. And this, despite the fact that your church actually says that polygamy is a celestial law in its very own scriptures? You're OK with the government officially prohibiting the practice of an eternal principle established by Elohim himself? Sure, since the Manifesto, you can be fine with that, but what if Elohim sent Jehova down to tell Pres. Monson to resume polygamy? Would you still be OK with laws prohibiting that?

At some point, the state must be allowed to define marriage. If sexual orientation is not a valid restriction on marriage, then how can other restrictions such as quantity (polygamy anyone?), relatedness (i.e., adult incest), and potentially even age and species restrictions, be valid?

The age and species restrictions are easy - those incapable of legal consent can't get married. Period. The incest laws are a little shakier, but even there there's a basis in genetics for prohibiting such relationships. Oh, and you're fine, or you're not fine, with anti-polygamy laws?

If the next study that comes out says that 9 year olds in sexual relationships are well adjusted, the courts won't be far behind saying that the 9 year old has the RIGHT to get married.

Lame attempt at scaremongering.

[_dblagent007]

Ah, yes, I must think all judicial decisions are an unwarranted exercise of raw judicial power. Uh, no. However, the vast majority of the controversial ones are (e.g., Roe, cannot execute rapists, Lawrence, etc.).

Ah, I get it. What you really are saying is that the court decisions that you don't like personally are the ones that constitute an unwarranted exercise of raw judicial power. Now I understand you perfectly.

There are decisions that I personally disagree with from a policy standpoint, but believe the constitution requires it. Most of these are in the criminal law areas (recent confrontation clause case comes to mind).

By the way, you oppose Lawrence? Do you believe it's really within the government's purview to enter into a private citizen's home and arrest consenting adults for having sex the "wrong" way? This is a serious question. Given the idea of freedom and liberty, and limited reach of government into the lives of the citizenry, do you honestly believe that it's the government's right to dictate what parts of each others' bodies consenting adults may touch or penetrate in the privacy of their own homes? You really believe that?

There is a difference between whether the government should do something and whether the constitution prohibits it. I have a more libertarian bent to me so I wouldn't support passage of anti-sodomy laws. However, I don't think the constitution prohibits them.

The 14th amendment was ratified with race based legal discrimination in mind. In fact, the court distinguished its action in Loving with other cases that upheld discrimination because they were not race based.

So do you support the Supreme Court of the United States telling a state that they cannot define which people can and cannot marry within their state? Was Loving correctly, or incorrectly decided?

Do you believe that Griswold was correctly decided? I'm just curious, but I'd appreciate an answer, if you don't mind.

I don't think it was correctly decided. I think the policy Griswold enacted was good, but it wasn't in the constitution.

In the latter, there are good reasons to restrict it to one man and one woman (e.g., because it takes a man and a woman to produce children, etc.). Even if you disagree with the state's reason, it is not so far fetched as to merit being overturned wholesale by the judiciary.

Out of curiosity, do you believe the (anti-polygamy aspects of) Morril Anti-Bigamy Act was constitutional? The Edmunds Act, making polygamy a felony?

I am not familiar with the specifics of these acts. Anti-polygamy acts were a little different because they were alleged to conflict with the free exercise of clause. Nonetheless, I think the state would probably have a sufficiently good reason to ban them (the adverse effects of polygamy) that the burden on religion would have to give.

I'm just curious, because you seem to be just fine with the idea of the feds, and the states, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. And this, despite the fact that your church actually says that polygamy is a celestial law in its very own scriptures?

The process for interpreting a constitution should be largely divorced from what religious doctrines are contained in one church's canon.

You're OK with the government officially prohibiting the practice of an eternal principle established by Elohim himself? Sure, since the Manifesto, you can be fine with that, but what if Elohim sent Jehova down to tell Pres. Monson to resume polygamy? Would you still be OK with laws prohibiting that?

Like I said above, my personal policy preferences shouldn't have any bearing on how to interpret the constitution. Even if I supported polygamy if it was reinstated, I would still feel that the constitution does not prevent the government from banning it.

At some point, the state must be allowed to define marriage. If sexual orientation is not a valid restriction on marriage, then how can other restrictions such as quantity (polygamy anyone?), relatedness (i.e., adult incest), and potentially even age and species restrictions, be valid?

The age and species restrictions are easy - those incapable of legal consent can't get married.

Whether one is capable of "legal consent" is an arbitrary determination made by the state to take away rights or so the argument goes. Many states have different ages after all (I believe some are still as low as 14). Besides, can't you see that this dog and his owner really love each other.

The incest laws are a little shakier, but even there there's a basis in genetics for prohibiting such relationships. Oh, and you're fine, or you're not fine, with anti-polygamy laws?

It's all just an arbitraty exercise of state power. If the state can't stop homosexuals from marrying based on the idea that marriage is primarily designed for the union of two sexes that are ordinarily capable of producing children, then it can't ban two cousins from marrying based on some weak scientific evidence of speculative genetic problems.

If the next study that comes out says that 9 year olds in sexual relationships are well adjusted, the courts won't be far behind saying that the 9 year old has the RIGHT to get married.

Lame attempt at scaremongering.

You know pedophiles feel that they are the next gays - meaning they believe they are the ones that are next in line to get their RIGHTS. All they need is to have society become more accepting, a few positive scientific studies, and viola, the courts can give them their wish. I'm sure it won't start with a 9 year old. It will probably start with a 13 year old that is barely under the 14 year old age limit and acts like an adult in every way.

[_collegeterrace]

My gay partners and employees know that I support Proposition 8.

Of course you support it, you are already married --to a woman if remember correct.

Until California recognizes polygamous gay/mixed marriage you must first divorce your wife before you can marry your gay partners.

[_Pokatator]

# Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
# Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
# Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
# Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)

It would seem both Obama and Biden (according to the VP debate) are of the mind that they should be granted civil unions, but there's no need to call it "marriage." I actually think that's reasonable, given what homosexuals are really fighting for are the same legal rights and privileges as hetero married couples enjoy.

I mean, it's just a name, and it comes from a religious tradition at that. If I were gay, I'd want to distance myself from the term "marriage" as much as possible given religion's bigotry of gay people.

But what do I know? I'm sure there are religious gays who want their marriage acknowledged "by god." I have no dog in that fight. I think they'd get a lot farther faster by just abandoning the "change the definition of marriage" crap and go for civil unions, though. Once they have it, they can call it whatever the hell they want.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that really matters is that they get the same damn legal rights as everyone else. Period.

Some Schmo your thoughts are mine and your bottom line is mind also. I just wonder how things might be different if different names or labels were used. A small change but it might stop the argument.

[_asbestosman]

The incest laws are a little shakier, but even there there's a basis in genetics for prohibiting such relationships.

Nope. Incest laws are pure bigotry. Genetics is not a sufficient reason. If it were, then we'd have to prohibit marriage between persons with known genetic difficulties, but we do not.

[_krose]

Nope. Incest laws are pure bigotry. Genetics is not a sufficient reason. If it were, then we'd have to prohibit marriage between persons with known genetic difficulties, but we do not.

I agree. There is no valid reason to legally discriminate against consenting adult couples just because they are related. It's not likely to happen much in actual practice (with adults) though. Besides the societal taboos, there is usually not much natural sexual interest between close adult relatives.

If it was good enough for Adam's children, and Noah's grandchildren...

But then, extending the definition of marriage even further is going the wrong direction. We need to get government out of the business of putting a stamp of approval on relationships. Leaving the word "marriage" to religion solves the problem entirely. Any pair (or group) of adults can be left to form any legal partnership they wish, to set rights of inheritance, etc.

[_rcrocket]

We need to get government out of the business of putting a stamp of approval on relationships. Leaving the word "marriage" to religion solves the problem entirely.

I agree with that entirely.

The problem the libertarian faces, however, is that government isn't that way and isn't likely to be that way.

[_Mike Reed]

We need to get government out of the business of putting a stamp of approval on relationships. Leaving the word "marriage" to religion solves the problem entirely.

I agree with that entirely.

Whose religion gets to define it? And does this proposal then invalidate all marriages involving athiests?

Slippin on the slippery-slick-slope.

[_asbestosman]

Whose religion gets to define it? And does this proposal then invalidate all marriages involving athiests?

If I'm reading them correctly, they're saying that each individual and organization can choose for themselves what they want to mean by marriage in the same way that they can choose which things are beautiful or delicious.