So what do Ca gays do now?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

That's why I included the word "bigotry."

Yes, but why not leave it at "bigotry".

Because I think it's both. I consider the irrational fear of homosexuals, including their very existence, to be homophobia.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Courts can interpret the law and find something unconstitutional. And Constitutions can then be amended, and yes to take away a right as has happened, not withstanding your comments below.

But it's never been done in order to strip a fundmental right from a specific group. And that doesn't bother you?

Not to take away an established and recognized fundamental constitutional right. Do you know of any? I sure don't.

Wrong.

Then give me an example.

Amendments certainly have occurred, but never to take away an established freedom and right.

Wrong.

Then give me an example.

And even if it were not wrong I see no reason that this could not happen. Is taking away a right specifically forbidden by the constitution. Oh another on, I believe it was the 14th amendment the limited states powers and rights.

The 14th Amendment expanded rights by limiting the ability of state gov'ts to deny fundamental rights to citizens. Moreover, it is very possible that Prop. 8 itself violates Section 7(b) of Article 1 of the Declaration of Rights (in the CA state constitution), which prevents rights being given to certain groups while denied to others.

Marriage was not a fundamental right under the constitution in 1920. One could argue that if the constitution did not forbid it then it was by default a right.

It has been recognized since 1967 until today to be a fundamental right that is constitutionally protected.

The federal constitution also was amended to add the ability to the government to levy an income tax and thus take away the right to much of your money.

Again, not a fundamental right. Keep trying ....

Sure it was a right. A right not to have one's income taxed. The fact that it took an amendment to the constitution to impose this confiscatory tax shows that in fact a US citizen had the right not to pay income tax. It was specifically unconstitutional to impose such a tax. This is exactly on point.

You still don't get it. It has to be a FUNDAMENTAL right, and the right not to be taxed is not. The right to marry is. Sorry, but keep trying ....

Not at all, and I have condemned any violence shown by either side. But I'm not surprised by any of it -- you screw with a group's fundamental rights and freedom and you're asking for trouble. Period.

Sorry. I just do not see the same outrage from you. Not near it at all.

I stated my outrage and condemnation to rcrocket a couple of days ago on a different thread. Sorry that my condemnation doesn't come out better in the written word.

Must like the resistance the Saints showed during the Utah War, when they felt their rights were being denied.

Don't try to change the subject.

I'm not. I'm just showing how human nature reacts when fundament rights are yanked away. The American Revolution is another good example.

People did have rational and reasonable motives that were not bigoted or based in fear at all. Some maybe were but many were not.

That's a load of crap, and you know it.

[_Droopy]

With this I agree. The EV right wing types only like the LDS Church when we pony up money to help with things like this. Other than that they are our enemy. THe Romney campaign revlealed that. One of many reasons why I abandon the republican party this year.

Interesting Jason. I abandoned the party about 3 or 4 years ago as a matter of general principles, but Huckabee's candidacy actually did shock me just a little, especially the old "Satan is Jesus' brother" chestnut.

I thought then that, previous to this, I had no real idea just what fifty years of Walter Martin, Ankerburg, Decker, and the anti-Mormon polemical movement in evangelical Protestantism had really accomplished. Seeing Huckabee stoop to this level at the outset woke me up somewhat regarding our EV brothers and sisters who, for the most part, I had always regarded as cultural allies on a number of issues. Now I'm not sure if this is even possible in the future.

I think one problem for the EVs is that, like much of the Left, there is a tendency to conspiratorial thinking and anti-intellectualism-distrust of critical thought. (especially the fundamentalists). After all, the 9/11 conspiracy theories aren't all the different in kind from much of what EV's have been taught to believe about Mormons and their concepts (the Brethren are plotting to take over the U.S. government etc., following similar views about Masons and other groups).

[_Droopy]

Fear that Satan is winning, fear that society will fall apart, fear that the Constitution will hang by a thread, fear that "traditional family values" will disappear, fear that gayness will increase, fear that society will accept homosexuals and SSM, fear that God will be unhappy?

Make no mistake, Rollo, in all his Nietzschean glory, is reveling in precisely the possibility of a future society in which these things are realities.

The reevaluation of all values for dummies.

[_asbestosman]

I consider the irrational fear of homosexuals, including their very existence, to be homophobia.

Who fears their very existence? I really don't see how it's homophobia. I see how it could be called bigotry, but bigotry is universal. We've got people bigoted against Mormons, Christians, atheists, men, women, etc.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Fear that Satan is winning, fear that society will fall apart, fear that the Constitution will hang by a thread, fear that "traditional family values" will disappear, fear that gayness will increase, fear that society will accept homosexuals and SSM, fear that God will be unhappy?

Make no mistake, Rollo, in all his Nietzschean glory, is reveling in precisely the possibility of a future society in which these things are realities.

What has the Constitution 'hanging by a thread' these days are the homophobes stripping away fundamental, constitutional rights of persons they fear or hate (irrationally, in my opinion). If it can happen to gays, it can happen to any unpopular segment of society. That's what is so scary, and which the homophobes and bigots are too blind to see.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I consider the irrational fear of homosexuals, including their very existence, to be homophobia.

Who fears their very existence?

Many do. That's why I consider it irrational and a form of phobia.

[_Droopy]

What has the Constitution 'hanging by a thread' these days are the homophobes stripping away fundamental, constitutional rights of persons they fear or hate (irrationally, in my opinion). If it can happen to gays, it can happen to any unpopular segment of society. That's what is so scary, and which the homophobes and bigots are too blind to see.

Again Rollo assumes the existence of fictitious and, as of yet, undemonstrated constitutional "rights" that never entered the heads of the founders. The fictitious "right" to homosexual marriage is of precisely the same logical, legal, and philosophical weight as the equally phantasmal "penumbras" and "emanations" that were said to lurk within the Constitution and were conjured from their ancient slumbers to support Roe.

Interesting too is that in the last 25 years or so it has almost been exclusively homosexual "rights" groups that burst into churches, assault parishioners, throw condoms at them, deface churches with spray paint and vicious graffiti, and violate the actual constitutional rights of others to speak, assemble, and support openly that which they believe to be right.

Rollo is such a typical liberal in that he doesn't understand what the constitution actually says, and even worse, doesn't really care. His constitution is the "living document"; the bastard offspring of critical legal theory and the Nietzscheization of western culture.

The only important thing is that he baths continually in his own moral pomposity and attacks the motives and character of those who disagree with him because he really doesn't have any philosophically or legally substantive arguments to make, which is another reason he relies exclusively on case law and legal precedent, rather than the original intent of the Constitution itself, and why he hurls moral invective at opponents of homosexual marriage and substitutes bare assertion for logical argumentation.

This is all he has , as the Constitution doesn't support him or the movement he supports.

[_Droopy]

Who fears their very existence?

No one. This is just ACLU fear mongering and character assassination in the name of silencing dissent.

[_Some Schmo]

People did have rational and reasonable motives that were not bigoted or based in fear at all.

I'm curious what those rational and reasonable motives were. Got any examples?