Keith Oberman's eloquent message to Mormons?

[Guest]

Pure semantics. How can any court interpret and apply the Constitution to a particular case with unique issues and not create law? It's impossible. And that's why courts follow the doctrine of stare decisis.

No uh...actually its social and political history. I do understand that ideology Trump's these as well.

But that's precisely what equal protection under the law does. It's how blacks and women attained certain rights previously only held by white men.

Blah blah blah, rama lama ding dong. Blacks and woman were denied the general unalienable rights guaranteed under the constitution. Homosexuals have always had those particular rights. What they are asking for now are "rights" created by judicial fiat that do not support and protect the unalienable core rights inherent in us as human beings, under which we are all equal, but which simply legitimize complex psychological dynamics and the culture they have created around those dynamics for a tiny minority who's desires are inimical to the majority culture around them and yet perceive themselves to have a unilateral right, without the concomitant responsibilities, to redefine, and hence, destroy, fundamental social and personal meaning structures within the majority society.

Marriage is marriage.

According to who? Oh yes...case law.

Snip more racial blah blah that has no logical relation to sexual proclivity.

No. Marriage is marriage.

According to what criteria?

You're still missing the point. It's about equal rights and protection under the laws, not "biases and values."

The entire issue is about the redefinition of gender roles, marriage, and family. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "equal rights". The Left really thinks it can package its Kulturkampf in constitutional robes and get away with it. Well, if this election demonstrates anything, it demonstrates that they may be able to get away with it after all.

Then I guess our Founding Fathers were "leftists" because they set up this constitutional system that's got you so frazzled.

The very idea that the Founders foresaw such an issue as that of homosexual marriage as they wrote the Constitution and wrote it so as to take such potential future situations into account is so profoundly preposterous on its face that its becoming intelligence insulting discussing it further. This is just further evidence that, for the Left, the Constitution (as Obama made clear in his NPR interview) is the primary impediment to the transformations within society it seeks, and hence, needs to be either essentially rewritten through case law, precedent, and historical revisionism, or eliminated altogether as a thorn in the paw of the state in exercising its social engineering initiatives.

[_asbestosman]

I'm still wondering how a a gay couple marrying is going to harm families, society, a community, the world, or the universe.

I seriously do not understand why this is even an issue. (Just like I do not understand why a mixed racial couple marrying was an issue).

Me either, but then I don't know how the atonement works, what the big deal is with faith (why doesn't God show Himself to all), or why I need to avoid tea.

What is the big deal to non-gays?

Religion.

Then it will be time to give the final group some equality... women. I don't think I will see it in my lifetime but it will come. Seems the LDS church is always a few decades behind the rest of the country so I'm guessing in about fifty years or so women will no longer be under covenant to follow their husbands, will be sealed to all their husbands in the same way as men are, and will have the "priesthood."

I don't see it happening, but I do wish that women would hold the priesthood. Then men could get visiting teachers and women could do the fun clerk stuff I have to do. Oh, and women could finally give each other blessings rather than call up guys at 3am. The only problem is that once women have the priesthood, they'd have no need for men.

[_Droopy]

I'm still wondering how a a gay couple marrying is going to harm families, society, a community, the world, or the universe.

I seriously do not understand why this is even an issue. (Just like I do not understand why a mixed racial couple marrying was an issue).

Me either, but then I don't know how the atonement works, what the big deal is with faith (why doesn't God show Himself to all), or why I need to avoid tea.

What is the big deal to non-gays?

Religion.

Then it will be time to give the final group some equality... women. I don't think I will see it in my lifetime but it will come. Seems the LDS church is always a few decades behind the rest of the country so I'm guessing in about fifty years or so women will no longer be under covenant to follow their husbands, will be sealed to all their husbands in the same way as men are, and will have the "priesthood."

I don't see it happening, but I do wish that women would hold the priesthood. Then men could get visiting teachers and women could do the fun clerk stuff I have to do. Oh, and women could finally give each other blessings rather than call up guys at 3am. The only problem is that once women have the priesthood, they'd have no need for men.

Another joke post. I love these.

[Analytics]

If the problem is really the word, "marriage", then let's just change the laws on the books so that "civil unions" between same sex couples have ALL of the same tax breaks, rights, etc., as married couples have.

It seems like a simple way to make everyone happy. Would it really be that difficult?

Homosexuals won't accept it as equal unless it's called the same thing that heterosexual couples get. If heterosexuals only have "civil unions" then it's fine.

The only difficulty I see is if it really IS a money issue by the far right, and they don't want to see same sex couples get those tax breaks, etc.

I doubt it'd be a significant issue as far as money is concerned. The bigger concern by those on the far right I speak to is that it legitimizes sinful behavior, will make kids more likely to become gay, causes global warming (which doesn't exist) etc.

[_asbestosman]

Another joke post. I love these.

But did you get the point? I'm beginning to think that too many people don't.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Blah blah blah, rama lama ding dong.

The most cogent words you've written all day. Kudos!

What they are asking for now are "rights" created by judicial fiat that do not support and protect the unalienable rights inherent in us as human beings, under which we are all equal, but which legitimize complex psychological dynamics and the culture they have created around those dynamics.

Read Loving v. Virginia. Marrying someone of your choice IS a fundamental right protected under the U.S. Constitution.

Marriage is marriage.

According to who? Oh yes...case law.

Until the gov't gets out of the marriage business altogether, that's exactly true.

The entire issue is about the redefinition of gender roles, marriage, and family.

BS. Wake up, bright boy. Your "Leave it to Beaver" fantasy never actually existed. Today the nuclear family hardly exists. People in this country are free to choose their gender roles, marriage and family. That's what freedom is all about. It you want to force everyone to act a certain way, you should have chosen Satan's side in the preexistence.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "equal rights."

It has everything to do with equal protection under the law.

The Left really thinks it can package its Kulturkampf in constitutional robes and get away with it.

Don't blame those of us on "the Left," blame the Founding Fathers. This is their fault, foisting that pesky Equal Protection Clause on us.

The very idea that the Founders foresaw such an issue as that of homosexual marriage as they wrote the Constitution and wrote it so as to take such potential future situations into account is so profoundly preposterous on its face that its becoming intelligence insulting discussing it further.

Do you think they foresaw equal rights for blacks and women?

... the Constitution (as Obama made clear in his NPR interview) is the primary impediment to the transformations within society it seeks, and hence, needs to be either essentially rewritten through case law, precedent, and historical revisionism, or eliminated altogether as a thorn in the paw of the state in exercising its social engineering initiatives.

The Constitution is the only thing protecting us from kooks like you, who have ripped a page out of Lucifer's playbook by trying to destroy freedom.

[_asbestosman]

Homosexuality is a behavior, a lifestyle, and a culture accompanied by numerous socio-cultural attributes and elements attached to various sexual sub-groups within the general homosexual sub-culture. Race and sex are inherent, genetic features, not ideations, desires, cultures, or or lifestyles. Black and female have no moral or social import.

Yes they do. It's called religion. Or maybe you actually think that one's particular religious beliefs are an inherent, genetic feature which would seem to contradict the doctrine of agency and accountability.

[_Droopy]

Yes they do. It's called religion. Or maybe you actually think that one's particular religious beliefs are an inherent, genetic feature which would seem to contradict the doctrine of agency and accountability.

I'll leave ascertaining what your talking about to you. In lieu of that, blackness or femaleness are inherent, genetically fixed physiological characteristics, over which the individual has no control, and hence, have no moral or social import beyond what others may impose upon them.

Homosexuality, or bi-sexuality, or transsexuality, or BDSM, or pedophilia, or bestiality, or any other sexual fetish or fixation, are not. These are bio/psycho/social phenomena, and not susceptible to the easy forming and flaking of ideology in pursuit of social and cultural revolution. These have an inherent, intrinsic moral and social affect and influence, and they do not simply exist physiologically, they are cultivated personally, psychologically, socially, and politically.

[_Ray A]

I'll leave ascertaining what your talking about to you. In lieu of that, blackness or femaleness are inherent, genetically fixed physiological characteristics, over which the individual has no control, and hence, have no moral or social import beyond what others may impose upon them.

Homosexuality, or bi-sexuality, or transsexuality, or BDSM, or pedophilia, or bestiality, or any other sexual fetish or fixation, are not. These are bio/psycho/social phenomena, and not susceptible to the easy forming and flaking of ideology in pursuit of social and cultural revolution. These have an inherent, intrinsic moral and social affect and influence, and they do not simply exist physiologically, they are cultivated personally, psychologically, socially, and politically.

All of this could easily have been shortened to: The Bible says so.

[_asbestosman]

Yes they do. It's called religion. Or maybe you actually think that one's particular religious beliefs are an inherent, genetic feature which would seem to contradict the doctrine of agency and accountability.

I'll leave ascertaining what your talking about to you. In lieu of that, blackness or femaleness are inherent, genetically fixed physiological characteristics, over which the individual has no control, and hence, have no moral or social import beyond what others may impose upon them.

Agreed, but there may be other classes of things to protect. Religion is one such thing which is protected but has no physiological basis (well, maybe a little bit, but not in the same way as gender or race).

These have an inherent, intrinsic moral and social affect and influence, and they do not simply exist physiologically, they are cultivated personally, psychologically, socially, and politically.

So is religion, but it is protected. That's my point. If religion is protected, then why can't sexual orientation be protected? In fact, I believe it is in the CA state constitution. I'd tell you to ask Rollo, but somehow I doubt you'd care about what he says.