Tom Hanks:"Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American'"

[_Rollo Tomasi]

There could have been other motives driving Droopy's support of Prop 8. Such as:

1. Blind obedience to God's anointed. Droopy believes that the Brethren in SLC speak to and for God. Since the Brethren commanded the true believers to support prop 8, you would expect that true believers such as Droopy, would follow those commands, irrespective of whether he is a bigot, and irrespective of whether his conscience told him bigotry and discrimination against gays is wrong. See Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Very true. This is one exception I failed to mention.

2. Irrational fear. Droopy and other were told that allowing gays to marry, would lead to the destruction of the family, which is at the core of the fabric of society. There are a lot of simple minded, fear driven people, who are not bigoted, but certainly aren't going to support gay rights, when the fabric of society is hanging by a thread.

Bigotry is often fueled by irrational fear or ignorance, so I agree.

[_Brackite]

The only irony here is that this is utterly irrelevant to my argument, or any pro-prop 8 argument. And, as I am not a Republican, and as being Republican has no necessary connection to conservatism (as the recent election and the last 8 years showed quite clearly), bring the irony on.

You're the one screaming about THE LEFT causing all this, when in fact 4 of the 5 CA judges who joined to recognize gay marriage were appointees of THE RIGHT.

Hello,

A Minor Correction here. It was a 4 to 3 ruling among the California Judges. The Following 3 Paragraphs are from Wikipedia:

In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384], is a California Supreme Court case holding "that the California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying."[1]

On May 15, 2008, the court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, thereby holding unconstitutional the previously existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage embodied in two statutes, one enacted by the Legislature in 1977, and the other through the initiative process in 2000 (Proposition 22). The Court's ruling also established that any law discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect, making California the first state in the United States to set such a strict standard.[2] On June 4, 2008 the court denied the request for rehearing by the same 4-3 majority while unanimously denying a petition for a stay, affirming that the decision would take effect as scheduled.[3] The Writ of Mandate directing the State Registrar of Vital Statistics and all County Clerks to comply with the ruling was issued by the Superior Court on June 19, 2008.[4]

The approval on November 4, 2008 of Proposition 8 whose provisions took effect the following day[5] as Article I § 7.5 of the California Constitution[6] calls into question the continued validity of same-sex marriages already performed. However, the amendment does not disturb that part of the court's holding that gay men and lesbians constitute a Suspect Class for purposes of equal protection under Art. I § 7.[7]

Here is the Hyper-Link to this whole Article from Wikipedia:

In re Marriage Cases:

[_Droopy]

Bigotry is what it is, whether about race or homosexuality. Let's call a spade a spade, Loran -- your rantings on the issue reflect precisely what 'principle' you espouse: BIGOTRY.

A simple admission such as this, that you and the rest of the Left collectively have lost the argument intellectually is quite welcome, thank you.

I accept your intellectual resignation...yet again.

[_Droopy]

There could have been other motives driving Droopy's support of Prop 8. Such as:

1. Blind obedience to God's anointed. Droopy believes that the Brethren in SLC speak to and for God. Since the Brethren commanded the true believers to support prop 8, you would expect that true believers such as Droopy, would follow those commands, irrespective of whether he is a bigot, and irrespective of whether his conscience told him bigotry and discrimination against gays is wrong. See Mountain Meadows Massacre.

It could also be deep and principled opposition to what I'm convinced for many reasons is a destructive and fundamentally immoral manner of life.

2. Irrational fear. Droopy and other were told that allowing gays to marry, would lead to the destruction of the family, which is at the core of the fabric of society. There are a lot of simple minded, fear driven people, who are not bigoted, but certainly aren't going to support gay rights, when the fabric of society is hanging by a thread.

It could also be deep and principled opposition to what I'm convinced for many reasons is a destructive and fundamentally immoral manner of life.

That said, Droopy's zealous support of prop 8, would also lead me to conclude that the principle that drives Droopy is his belief that homosexuality is an abomination before God ... righteous bigotry.

I'd like to see a well constructed philosophical argument demonstrating in a compelling way that belief that homosexuality is abomination before God can be construed as necessarily bigoted, and how it could be separated from a belief that homosexuality is an abomination before God that is not bigoted.

[_Droopy]

Bigotry is often fueled by irrational fear or ignorance, so I agree.

It is also often fueled, among a certain kind of mindset and personality, by a sense of self absorbed, sanctimonious hubris and socio-intellectual snobbery in the service of moral self justification.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Bigotry is what it is, whether about race or homosexuality. Let's call a spade a spade, Loran -- your rantings on the issue reflect precisely what 'principle' you espouse: BIGOTRY.

A simple admission such as this, that you and the rest of the Left collectively have lost the argument intellectually is quite welcome, thank you.

I accept your intellectual resignation...yet again.

I take from your response that you agree with me: your comments on this thread have been fueled by bigotry, period. Thanks for illustrating my point perfectly.

[_Droopy]

I take from your response that you agree with me: your comments on this thread have been fueled by bigotry, period. Thanks for illustrating my point perfectly.

No, its only an observation regarding the fact that the Left has nothing...nothing except the attacking of the moral character of its opponents and the most transparently ad hoc, concocted legal sophistries to support the destruction of the constitution they so despise (being, after all, one great impediment to the kind of society and government they want to construct) and the society, grounded in classical liberal ideas and Judeo/Christian social and moral concepts, they so abhor.

You and those who believe as you do lost this argument intellectually, as with other arguments, long ago. But then, the Left controls the public schools, the humanities and social science professorate, the foundations, most of the mainstream print and electronic media, Hollywood and the arts, the federal judiciary, the welfare state, and the Washington regulatory apparatus.

So much for argument.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

No, its only an observation regarding the fact that the Left has nothing...nothing except the attacking of the moral character of its opponents and the most transparently ad hoc, concocted legal sophistries to support the destruction of the constitution they so despise (being, after all, one great impediment to the kind of society and government they want to construct) and the society, grounded in classical liberal ideas and Judeo/Christian social and moral concepts, they so abhor.

Wow. A lot of big words that can be boiled down to one simple word: BIGOTRY.

[_Calculus Crusader]

The Supreme Court is set up in the Constitution to interpret the Constitution (no other branch gets this responsibility). Your issue is with the Constitution, not the court decisions.

Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Droop also fails to recognize that 4 of the 5 CA supreme court judges who comprised the majority recognizing gay marriagein are Republican appointees. Ah, the irony ....

So what? Being appointed by a Republican does not a conservative justice make.