Asshats of the Day
In keeping with the thread on Ted Olsen totally destroying Chris Wallace on FAUX Entertainment, today’s Asshats of the Day are Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (DE has their own chapter of these group – Elaine Benes, I mean, Christine O’Donnell is a member), and the American Family Foundation. FRC (or is the FURCK) and AFA are notoriously anti-gay organizations, all in the name of saving our White, Christian nation. Both Perkins and the AFA have said that Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself because he is gay. According to Huffington Post, Walker has never spoken openly about being gay.
Perkins was on Face the Nation Sunday and said “I think what you have is one judge who thinks he knows — and a district level judge and an openly homosexual judge at that — who says he knows better than not only 7 million voters in the state of California but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments. This is far from over. Had this guy been … an evangelical preacher in his past there would have been cries for him to step down from this case,” he added. “So I do think [his homosexuality] has a bearing on the case. But this is not without precedent.” Um, Tony, that’s why we have an independent court system, to interpret the law. And this judge, appointed by your hero Ronnie Reagan, weighed the testimony and evidence and issued his ruling. And judges have overturned referenda before. That’s they way it goes and there’s your precedent.
And the AFA claims that Walker’s “sexual proclivity” disqualified him from hearing the case.
I really wonder what these asshats would be saying right now if Walker had upheld Prop 8? Do you think they would have been praising the brave homosexual judge who turned his back on his own kind?
Asshats – they’re becoming a dime a dozen.
I assume you can say where same sex marriage exists in the constitution as Ted could not. Chris Wallace effectively shut the door on anything he had to say when Ted could not say so.
For the demented liberal asshats who seem to be able to conjure up anything from the Constitution they feel is appropriate, you are so wrong.
Now, will Ted support polygamy? Maybe let me marry my pet?
Liberal fools are not worth a dime.
Yo Teabagger, Come out from under the Fox Faux News bubble; were in the constitution is there any mention of marriage? If you want to marry your pet, well that’s creepy but that’s on you.
Maybe let me marry my pet?
If your pet is your ass, I congratulate you on your union.
It’s weird how so many conservatives go to this crazy logic: if a man can marry a man then soon man will be able to marry his pet. Ummmm….yeah, because a pet is exactly the same as an informed, consenting adult.
CYSAD – where in the Constitution does it say that children of different races should be forced to go to school together? No where. But that is where the courts come in, schmuck. The courts INTREPRET the Constitution; in this case, Judge Walker determined that Prop 8 violated the Equal Protection clause. Much like the SCOTUS banned segregation in schools.
Ah, but I’m sure that Constitutional law degree you got from saving those TRIX cereal boxtops edumakated you.
And I’ll never understand what it is with conservatives and their fascination with beastiality.
My pet would be better than any liberal for sure, at least the IQ would be better.
Check the Constitution, the states regulate marriage.
INTREPRET?
Hey moron, do you mean:in·ter·pret/inˈtərprit/Verb
1. Explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions): “interpret the evidence”.
2. Translate orally the words of another person speaking a different language
Liberals are so sad and angry all the time, must be tough to have such a failed philosophy and have a liberal idiot as President.
Check the Constitution and you’ll find nothing about marriage, which leaves it to the states. The states, however, are not free to enact laws that violate civil rights, which is where the federal courts come in.
It must be sad to have such a basic misunderstanding of U.S. history and our separation of powers. I suppose that’s where all your anger comes from.
Ted’s argument does seem to work pretty well for polygamy. As soon as the polygamists figure this out, legalization of polygamy may be an unintended consequence. I’m not saying this is a bad thing – if the Constitutional logic points that way, then we have to go there.
It must be sad to wake up every morning, look in the mirror, and realize what a lonely, ugly life you lead, CYSAD. Wow, even the acronym spell out your life.
Thinking about all of the Presidents I’ve lived under, my life has been much better under the liberals that it was under the conservatives.
Of course, the logic of this opinion must also soon lead to a constitutionally protected right to polygamy. After all, the only rational basis for limiting marriage to two people was the existence of two sexes and their necessity for reproduction/traditional sex roles. As Judge Walker declared it to be a “fact” (actually, it is his personal opinion) that neither of those is relevant to the nature of marriage or a rational basis for limiting marriage to one man and one woman, the basis for limiting marriage to two people only also falls by the wayside as irrational. And besides — how are you and your marriage harmed by the state allowing 3, 4, or 15 people to enter into a marriage?
Funny how you suddenly can’t find anything bad to say about polygamy. So different from all the bad things you have to say about gay marriage. Why not use your powers of “observation” to use figuring out the differences between a two-party contract and a 3-, 4-, or 15-party contract?
Using Observer’s “rational” basis for marriage, women past the age of conception should be barred from marriage as well as men and women who are sterile. And people who decide that they do not want to have children should also be barred from marriage.
Note – there is also nothing in the Constitution that expressly allows divorce (in fact, some faiths preach against it). So why is government in the divorce business?
well if SOME faiths preach aganist divorce, it should be banned in the entire country. after all, this IS nation that makes laws based on religion.
MJ — that was not my argument. That was Judge Vaughn’s argument against limiting marriage to mixed-sex couples only.
And geezer — what’s the difference other than the number? And on what rational basis is marriage limited to two, given that marriage is a fundamental right? After all, the reason for limiting marriage to 2 parties was reproduction and sex roles. Besides, there is a whole lot more historical support for polygamy than there is for gay marriage in the various cultural and religious traditions of the world — including in the Western tradition.
You would do well to go and read what your hero wrote before criticizing me for using the very same argument to show how fatuous the logic is.
Polygamists have to make their own court arguments. I’d certainly argue that there’s a difference between a contract between 2 people & the government.
The argument for same sex marriage is that LGBT are being denied the basic right of Americans to marry the consenting, adult person of their choice. Polygamists are not denied the right to marry the person of their choice or multiple persons of their choice, they are denied the right to do this at the same time. This is not at all the same.
I’ve decided to start my own religion where people I think are jerks are not allowed to marry. I demand that you respect my religion by immediately dissolving jerk marriages.
Jerks should only be allowed to marry each other. But only same-sex jerks, so they don’t reproduce.
Actually, no one was denied equal rights. Everyone was permitted to marry the unrelated, unmarried consenting adult of the opposite sex of their choice.
The problem was that some folks wanted a different choice that was prohibited by law, something that no individual was permitted, regardless of their sexual orientation. After all, straight people could not marry someone of the same sex, either.
Actually, no one was denied equal rights. Everyone was permitted to marry the unrelated, unmarried consenting adult of the opposite sex of their choice.
Their choice was not a person of the opposite sex and this has been denied. The finding of fact, based on the scientific evidence, is that sexual orientation is not a choice, it’s hardwired biologically. It makes no sense to discriminate based on this.
And if someone’s choice is his sister, and she is willing? The same argument applies.
Besides, what do you say to the poor bisexual who is hardwired to want one of each?
Wingnuts rush to bestiality, polygamy and incest. Seek therapy. Get yourselves an anti-venom because you are all filled with poison.
Yes, CR, and I’m spitting it your direction like a cobra. Die, liberal scum! 🙂
You miss my point, as usual. I don’t care if polygamists choose to pursue a legal remedy to their situation. I presume you do. Why should I make arguments against them when you’re the one who objects? If you don’t object, by all means act to legalize polygamy. You’ll get no argument from me.
In other words, have the courage of what you claim are your convictions.
gee Observer, I told all the guys you swallowed
“After all, the reason for limiting marriage to 2 parties was reproduction and sex roles.”
Wrong. It was merely the cultural custom of the western Europeans who settled this country. All the rationalizing about the reasons are ex post facto. Polygamy, as you note, is still practiced in some cultures. But because much American law is based on English common law, there will be practical problems to overcome in civil cases involving polygamy. So while as a moral or rational matter the number doesn’t matter, in practical terms it will.
I was actually thinking of a way the Free Market worshipers could take advantage of legal same sex marriage and polygamy. Sing people like Ken Lay and Goldman CEOs don’t value things like love or morality, they could marry their male business partners to avoid having to testify against each other when they are brought up on charges.
hell, the C street gang could all tie the knot and they would be forever protected from the public finding out what they are really about.
CR, you clearly have me confused with your mom — but then again, the guys already knew she swallows when I told them.
But again, geezer, why that number? According to Vaughn Walker, reproduction and sex roles. Since those are irrational and/or no longer operative according the Judge Walker, the number would be as irrational as the diversity of gender requirement.
And especially given the noted lack of monogamy among gay men, a multiple-partner gay marriage might be the best configuration for them.
Again, I’m not into arguing the judge’s logic. That’s your bailiwick. I’m merely pointing out that civil law will have practical problems with it. Since you’re so supportive of the idea, I suppose you can help work them out.
In short, your argument is “If you dislike polygamy, you should logically dislike gay marriage just as much” simply doesn’t apply to me. I don’t dislike either one. You’re the one with the problem, so I suggest you solve it and leave me — and the gays — out of it.
Observer once again shows how much of a fucking idiot he is. Noted lack of monogamy among gay men? What are your sources? It’s not our fault you can’t keep your pants zipped. I’ve been in a monogamous relationship for 12 years. I have many friends who have been in monogamous relationships for 20, 30, 40 years and longer. My guess is that this is another fact pulled out of your hemorrhoidic ass.
And please, oh wise one with all of the answers, why would straight people marry someone of the same sex?
While you might be doing your best to win the Asshat of the Day award, you should know that bad behaviour is not rewarded.
a “your mom” joke? really Observer? You must have really run out of Glenn Beck issued conspiracy theories to regurgitate. What a cheap moronic 3rd grade thing you say… even for a political blog. You have officially forfeited any right to be treat civilly by anyone. What a dumbass.
Is that really what we are up against? people like that? sad.
MJ, all you queers (i mean that with respect) are just disease filled ticking time bombs who will one day infect all us straight men with the gay… Im on to you!! Observer is too…. he has got to be one of the smartest people alive…. thank White American God he is on our side.
By the way, one thing that is overlooked by those of you celebrating this decision is that Judge Walker overlooked the controlling Supreme Court precedent. You might consider Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), which held that the refusal of a state to license gay marriages does not present a substantial federal question.
What you overlooked, Not Too Observant, is that in Romer v Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), the SCOTUS held that states could not discrimiinate against a class of citizens by claiming the suspect class was seeking special rights, which is the entire, boiler-plate reasoning of the backers of Prop 8. 1972 –> 2010 – it seems to me that the courts have grown up and seen the error of their ways from previous decisions.
MY MOM!?! Dude, she’s been dead for like 18 years! Breast cancer. But thanks for brightening my day, only a complete tool would throw someone’s mom into the fray.Kudos to you big boy!
The problem, of course, is that under your logic there is no way for a state to change its constitution to undo a state court ruling that the state constitution requires gay marriage. That was what was at work here, not a claim of special rights. That is a far cry from what was at work in the Romer case — and since Walker ruled that there is an explicit 14th Amendment right to marry, he failed to show respect for precedent (you know, that stare decisis thing you folks like to whine about when conservatives even hint at narrowing Roe v. Wade), Baker v. Nelson was the SCOTUS precedent in need of consideration, not Romer.
And CR — I’d like to say I’m sorry for traumatizing you. But I’m not, so I won’t. You started the pointless juvenile personal attacks, and I was quite pleased to respond in kind. Here’s hoping that you learn that when you start that crap, some of us will play hardball back.
some of you will play hardball back…..
you mean like… you lose an election, then threaten to use the “second amendment solution” to “take your government back”?
sounds like teabag treachery to me.
also sounds like it is in keeping with the way you people present yourselves….. mean reactionary ninnies who sit around waiting for an excuse, then wet themselves at the first chance to hurt someone
I believe that Observer is actually Justice Scalia, who is bored since the Court has the summer off. Scalia cried that same stare decisis stuff in Lawrence v Texas and lost, much like your arguments here have FAILED.
Read Romer v Evans – a state cannot use their contstitution to restrict rights against a suspect class. And in the case of the Porp 8 decision, the state constitution was being used to deny a suspect class certain rights that the rest of the state’s citizenry were enjoying. Judge Walker ruled correctly that this was unconstitutional.
Face it, asshole, you lost. Why don’t you go over to one of those conservative blogs where they’ll prop up your ego. Or are you that much of a masochist?
Except, MJ, that under your reading of Romer gay marriage was made a requirement in 1996. However, Romer does not go nearly so far — and the amendment in question imposed a much more broad disability than did Prop 8, and one in which the state had a much clearer compelling interest in acting. And given the Baker v. Nelson precedent that gay marriage does not present a substantial federal issue, it seems to me that Romer is misapplied by the Judge — especially in light of his failure to address the precedent most on point, baker v. Nelson.
FAILED again, masochist. FAILED again!
Romer v Evans does not require gay marriage, but it does prevent discrimination against a suspect class (or didn’t I make that clear before). Why does the state have a compelling interest in whether two gay people want to get married?
Obs, hardball? you can’t even reach the plate, but you do look fine in those kneepads.
MJ, why are you still fighting this guy?
HE will ascribe to whatever reality makes him feel the least uncomfortable…. his homophobia is SO intense I’d call him a closet case, but I doubt you’d want him on the team.
Just an ignorant little teabagger who I really hope lives to see the first gay president and his biracial Jewish/Hindu family… complete with a first man and the womyn then used to have children…. who is a part of the family but has her own romantic life and plans to marry her long time girlfriend.
I also hope Scalia lives to see that day.
easy CR, it is only an insult to be gay if you are a teabagger…. otherwise you are just complimenting his fashion sense.
a.price — my first boss once told me the following: “My skin may be black and my mother may have been a bitch, butI’m smart enough to recognize that the guy calling me a ‘black son of a bitch’ is insulting me, even if his skin is darker than mine.”
It was clear that the sexual-orientation jab at me was intended to be an insult, and so I treated it as such, because the intent was what mattered, not the words or the orientation of the person using them. I’m secure enough in my sexuality and love my gay friends and family members enough to not take such things as a slur if they are not intended that way. I’d be much more concerned about CR trafficking in homophobia if I were you — whether that makes CR a homophobe or a self-hating.
Observer: Insults aside, I’d like to get back to the question of polygamy. Are you or are you not bringing it up because you think it should be illegal? I’m having a hard time understanding your actual position on gay marriage because you seem to be arguing by analogy rather than stating your true position. Are you claiming that society’s interest in the next generation is the legal basis for its endorsement of marriage contracts? Not that there’s anything wrong with it if you are, though I disagree with that position. I just can’t tell if you’re taking a socially conservative position or a libertarian one.
Less than Observant, you’ve found me out! For such a dim witted fool, you make a great sherlock John Holmes.
Fine, then, CR — care to settle on an honorable truce?
Geezer, what I am doing is pointing to the flawed logic of Judge Walker’s opinion. The argument he makes is so dangerously broad as to upset most of our current marriage laws in a way that the gay community has long said would never happen if gay marriage were to be made legal. As such, he endangers the entire movement towards gay marriage that exists in this country. He will, I believe, be overturned by either the Ninth or SCOTUS, having damaged the effort to bring about gay marriage. If he is not, there will likely be a Federal Marriage Amendment sent to the states and ratified in short order — doing even greater damage to the movement for gay marriage. My love for my gay friends and my gay family members (one of whom is a leader in Indiana’s gay marriage movement) leads me to fear the damage that Judge Vaughn Walker may have caused to the gay community’s acceptance as a whole.
Now admittedly, I say that as one opposed to gay marriage — but at least open to its being brought about via democratic rather than judicial means because i do not see a right to marry anywhere in the 14th Amendment The short-circuiting of our nation’s debate and discussion of contentious issues without clear and convincing constitutional mandate for doing so has never been beneficial for this country — whether we are talking Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade. I would put Vaughn Walker’s decision in this case into the same category.
As for whether my position is socially conservative or libertarian, I do not know that I would argue for either. Instead I’d suggest that my position is something of a traditionalist/majoritarian one in terms of where I believe the outcome of this case should have come — and also in terms of my concern about this decision, left unchecked, will leave the American people when the states attempt to defend laws restricting marriage to monogamous unions only. As far as my attitude on same-sex relationships (and polygamous ones), my attitude is rather libertarian, with the proviso that I reject the notion that there is a right to state recognition and endorsement of either (or, for that matter, to state recognition and endorsement of traditional heterosexual marriage, which any state could choose to derecognize as well).
Have I cleared the waters, or muddied them?
FMA would never make it out of Congress. Hell, W couldn’t even get it done.
Cleared them. Thank you. I find this much more convincing than your former approach.
Observer, the problem is “it’s just wrong” is still present in your argument. You claim not to care, so why not let everyone have the same rights. The “slippery slope to Lamp Post / Donkey weddings is just about as foolish as the fear that Sarah Palin could ever be president.
and SPEAKING of the courts ruling over the will of the people (i wont even MENTION the 2000 election … oops) recently activist conservative judges granted non-living companies… some not even American companies…. the right to buy our election process. So don’t act like only the progressive side gets judicial wins. This is America, sometimes things you won’t like will happen and you have to just deal with it.
Can You Spare A Dime – watch your comments and your crude attempts at outing contributors and commenters on this blog. One more infraction and you’re gone.
Did I miss something?
sounds like Dimey tried to out someone and his comment got pwned.
1. The reason that the FMA couldn’t get out of Congress was that the situation was all very hypothetical. Now we have a federal court decision that potentially legalized gay marriage nationwide — that’s the game-changer.
2. The FMA doesn’t need to get out of Congress. Consider that 39 states have passed state-level equivalents. It takes 24 to call for an Article V constitutional convention. Congress has no discretion over calling one, nor can Congress refuse to send the amendments proposed by such a convention on to the states.
3. Assuming that Congress does not want to risk an Article V convention run out of control (and it is questionable that one could be limited to the issue of marriage alone — see the Constitutional Convention of 1787 for a precedent), Congress might just decide to send the FMA out as the better of two options it does not desire.
4. Given the changes we are likely to see after November’s elections — and the likely increase in more populist Republicans rather than the establishment, “political class” variety — I think that there could be a working majority in favor of the FMA even without the Article V threat looming.
In those 39 states, most, if not all, require super-majorities over successive legislative sessions to even begin the task of asking for a Constitutional Convention. In theory, you might be correct, but it’s not practical nor is it probable. And in those 39 states, how many were passed by referendum and how many were enacted by the legislature. I don’t believe that an Article V constitutional convention can be held by referendum.
i still wonder and always will, why the contributors on this site love to try and play comment police. Standards were set a while ago, but they always seem to be rewritten when a new contributor has a slight feeling of arbiter in their blood.
Umm, DV, hasn’t outing always been a sin on this site?
Outing has always been verboten here. dv apparently feels the need to get his comment police on today.
Observer: I think these concerns are overblown, especially considering the demographic march toward marriage equality. The issue works much better as a driver to get conservatives motivated than as a game-changer in public attitudes. If you don’t care much either way, how is a court ruling going to push you into opposition?
maybe I have a small mind, maybe I’m not smart or socially aware but honestly folks…I really cannot get my head around the opposition to gay marriage?? I really cannot.
No one has, in my opinion made a reasonable argument, based on fact against it .
It cannot be due to reproduction or else sterile men and women could not marry and couples can adopt gay or otherwise.
It cannot be the slippery slope of marriage to say an animal or inanimate object – as marriage could be defined as a civilally recognized union of two (or more, hell I don;t care how many) consenting adults.
It cannot be the religious argument – as that is preculded by our Constitution
So what IS the deal? – the only one left is….AHHHHHHH FEAR?
So if you object to gay marriage, and it is not based on the above premises presented – coud you please clue me in???
Hatred of gays was the glue the Republicans used to form a majority coalition with social conservatives. They don’t want to give that up. If the SoCons aren’t riled up about something, they will close their wallets and stay home on Election Day.
think it all boils down to this… conservatives don’t want to use the honeymoon suite after a newly married gay couple had marathon gay honeymoon sex in it.
i have a secret…… listen up bagger… you can get a honey moon suite even if you weren’t just married.
Besides…. given what i have heard about marriage.. but never intend to find out, less sex happens with married couples. So if you want to reduce gay sex, allowed gay marriage!
c;mon ‘bags finnish this sentence without referenceing God, the Bible, being grossed out, or morality…. “gay marriage is wrong because________”
I don’t know about that MJ — I’d have to check on the procedures.
And as for the product of any Article V convention, it would be possible to require ratification by a specially elected ratification convention rather than the state legislature — go back and look at Article V.
And Geezer, remember that the trend prior to Roe v. Wade was towards abortion rights. Roe v. Wade cut off the public debate, reframed it, and polarized it. The result is that, 4 decades later, an issue that was likely to be settled is now one of the gaping wounds in our political landscape. I see Walker’s decision as doing the same thing as Roe.
you mean like George W Bush’s presidency?
“gay marriage is wrong because________”
Because the majority of the American people reject it every time they are asked, and its imposition on American society by unelected judges is therefore a fundamental rejection of the right of the people to govern themselves. A law need not be logical or a good idea to be constitutional.
Observer, every time you asked southerners about civil rights, the majority would have vied against ending slaver, ending separate and unequal, they would have voted against giving the minority the right to vote….. the list goes on. Sometimes, a president, or a judge has to tell the people they are wrong and make a decision on the side of what is right and good. In this case the people who oppose gay marriage do so out of prejudice and hate… you have not demonstrated any opposition other than morality based in religion and since (than god) we don’t live in a theocracy, it is an unconstitutional position.
no way around it.
also, the judge was totally within his constitutional rights to make that ruling. I thought the right wing were the guardians of constitutional purity. Show me where the judge violated it. you cant.
Its just like the bible. Conservatives claim to be all knowing and all following until it says something they don’t like….. then it is wrong and must be changed.
You mean the 2000 election, in which Bush won a majority of the electoral votes as required by the Constitution? And in which Democrat partisans attempted to rig the vote count in Florida through judicial manipulation so that the losing candidate (Gore) got the state’s electoral votes instead of the winner? The outcome of the 2000 election was therefore precisely what the Constitution mandated.
you’re right. The constitution allows a person who loses the popular vote to win the presidency. The SCOTUS ended the vote count before the will of the people could be fully counted…. as was and still is their constituional right. The majority of the country had to deal with it and eat the shit sandwich because THAT IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS.
now it’s your turn.
Actually, the votes were fully and accurately counted. What was desired by the Gore camp was the counting of invalid ballots by the psychic divining of intent without clear evidence or a clear standard for making a determination. The fact is that in every count before the ruling, and in every subsequent count, George W. Bush won.
And given that the last president to win with a majority of the popular vote before George W. Bush in 2004 was George H. W. Bush in 1988, what exactly is your point — that you don’t need a majority of the popular vote to win a majority of the electoral vote? Heck, all you need to do is look at 1860 to see that.
So not only does Observer give us teabagger “wisdom” and “insight” into constitutional law, he now provides revisionist history. Give us a break. Dumbya was appointed by a 5-4 vote.
By the way, I’ve never brought God into the discussion — only you have. And a law is not unconstitutional merely because it conforms with the religious beliefs of the American people or members of a particular religious group overwhelmingly support it — “a legislative enactment does not contravene the Establishment Clause if it has a secular legislative purpose, if its principal or primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and if it does not foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion.” Committee for Public Education v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 653
Where is the revisionism, MJ?
i guess 54% isnt a majority in Teabag land.
my fault…. observer likely watches fox news. and in fox news world, Obama tricked St Sarah into giving him the presidency after SHE won by defeating the evil warlord Zul.
and observer,
i realize YOU did not bring god into the discussion this time, but you’re argument rests on people who voted based on … what? they couldn’t have voted based on who voted. Im saying the reason they voted against equality is unconstitutional and that wrong had to be corrected. luckily, we have a totally constitutional mechanism for just such a problem.
Comment by a. price on 11 August 2010 at 12:51 pm:
i guess 54% isnt a majority in Teabag land.
* * * * *
What the fuck are you talking about?
George H. W. Bush won an absolute majority of the popular vote in 1988.
A majority of voters cast their ballots against Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996.
And a majority voted against both George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000.
George W. Bush won an absolute majority of the votes in 2004 — hence my statement that “the last president to win with a majority of the popular vote before George W. Bush in 2004 was George H. W. Bush in 1988”.
My point was that the Constitution envisions and provides a mechanism for someone who received a minority of the popular vote to win the election. That is how Lincoln was able to win in 1860 with only 38.8% of the popular vote — meaning that over 60% of the electorate voted against him and, in the words of a profane idiot, “had to deal with it and eat the shit sandwich” under the provisions of the US Constitution.
Now would you care to explain where got 54%, numb-nuts? Certainly not in any of the issues I raised. Are you stupid, high, or simply delusional?
By the way, a.price, you failed to deal with the relevant Supreme Court precedent I cited above:
“a legislative enactment does not contravene the Establishment Clause if it has a secular legislative purpose, if its principal or primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and if it does not foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion.” Committee for Public Education v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 653
That pretty clearly puts paid to your notion that just because people vote in line with their religious beliefs the result is unconstitutional. The definition of marriage has a valid secular legislative purpose, it neither advances nor inhibits religion, and it does not at all entangle government and religion.
and what is that valid secular purpose?
I also forgot that obama got less than 50% of the vote… wait no he didnt. isnt that still a majority? or is it that you are pulling a Hamas and simply denying the fact the 2008 election ever happened?
i’m sure you feel proud of yourself for finally embracing your hate and calling me a name… but in order for that argument to work you have to provide a valid secular reason to discriminate against gays.
and before you try….. black people are a small percentage of the populace, but we let them marry white people. (it was also a common secular practice to not allow that until the will of the majority was overturned because it was wrong and based in hate.)
Jews are a small percentage of the populace, but we let them marry shicksahs.
Sure there are some religious reasons to be against interfaith marriages, but no single valid secular reason. so please…. enlighten my stupid high delusional brain, and maybe my nuts will regain some feeling.
Well, a. price, since I was talking about elections between 1988 and 2004, I didn’t need to talk about the 2008 election, did I?
I also didn’t talk about the 1980 and 1984 elections — do you imply that I am denying the fact that THOSE elections happened, too, as well as the other elections from 1864 up until the point I began discussing the outcome of historical presidential elections? Am I denying the existence of the elections prior to 1860, since I didn’t mention them, either?
I’m sorry that my effort to point out that Bill Clinton was also rejected by a majority of the American electorate in the two elections he won under the terms of the US Constitution got in the way of your need to give a shout-out to your boy Barry, but the results of his election were not relevant to the point I was making and so I didn’t feel a need to acknowledge that he received just under 53% (not 54% — get your facts right if you are going to try to get into a pissing match, son) of the vote in 2008.
Oh, and a.price, the preservation and promotion of the traditional marital form of one man and one woman as a social structure IS a valid secular legislative purpose.
That is not to say that there are not good counter-arguments on the other side — and perhaps even better arguments, if you want to try to make that case — but the mere existence of those counter-arguments is insufficient to render laws in favor of the traditional form of marriage invalid.
“Roe v. Wade cut off the public debate, reframed it, and polarized it.”
You are correct in general, but a little off on the specifics. The decision did not cut off public debate, and the decision did not reframe and polarize the issue. The decision cut off state-by-state debate, and opponents of the decision reframed and polarized the issue.
For what it’s worth, the same thing happened on capital punishment — a federal decision crystalized opposition, interrupting a steady state-by-state march toward a more liberal position. The same would have happened on abortion (IMO) absent Roe v. Wade, but it would lead to a situation many people wouldn’t like — a Balkanized country in which some states allowed it and others didn’t. Arguably this is a larger problem with marriage than it is with abortion or capital punishment.
But don’t blame the decisions. The decisions triggered reactions. Those doing the reacting chose to react in the ways they did — generally speaking, to restrict the rights of others.
“the preservation and promotion of the traditional marital form of one man and one woman as a social structure IS a valid secular legislative purpose.”
So you’re in favor of outlawing divorce?
“:Oh, and a.price, the preservation and promotion of the traditional marital form of one man and one woman as a social structure IS a valid secular legislative purpose”
but where is that tradition based? You can say marriage was indented for either family alliances or procreation…. if you want to argu that, fine. But you must also defend the logic when it applies to heterosexual marriages where there are no alliances formed, or children born. That would be the same exploitation of the “traditional marriage” as same sex.
Comment by Geezer on 11 August 2010 at 3:02 pm:
“the preservation and promotion of the traditional marital form of one man and one woman as a social structure IS a valid secular legislative purpose.”
So you’re in favor of outlawing divorce?
* * * * *
At least doing away with no-fault divorce.
Comment by a. price on 11 August 2010 at 3:14 pm:
“:Oh, and a.price, the preservation and promotion of the traditional marital form of one man and one woman as a social structure IS a valid secular legislative purpose”
but where is that tradition based?
* * * * *
In the reality that there are two genders and it takes one of each to form a marriage, which is a union of those two complementary genders, ideally based upon love and the opportunity for procreation. While some marriages turn out to be infertile (mine, unfortunately, after multiple miscarriages), that does not constitute an “exploitation” of the traditional form. Even if one concedes that some mixed-gender marriages do not result in procreation for a variety of reasons, the centrality of that mixed-gender form has become a major part of our culture, and the encouragement, maintenance and preservation of that social structure is a both legitimate and rational. While one might like to argue in favor of changing the institution to reflect the desires of same-sex couples, the imposition of such change from above is not legitimate in a society that is based upon the self-government and the consent of the governed.
It DOES NOT take two different genders to form a marriage; that is only required to procreate. Two different subjects. Why can’t you teabaggers realize this?
Hey MJ, you might consider changing the names of your posts to include the weekday, such as “Wednesday Asshats of the Day.” It makes threads easier to follow.
“doing away with no-fault divorce.”
Just wow. I’m awestruck by the level of social engineering you’re willing to invest in a government and laws that you don’t trust to do tasks that are so much more straightforward.
I think Observer really believes that society will crumble if 2 dudes can get married. is that what you think Observer? Black will be down? left will be in?
oh, and let me just add a giant HA to your little line about the consent of the governed. this from a conservative at a time when the conservatives have stood in the way of the will of the people, shut down a government elected by a majority vote and not even allowed votes to take place.
what hypocrisy.
what balls.
Odd, a.price, that you object to conservatives doing precisely what you liberals did during the years when the GOP had a majority in both houses of Congress and controlled the White House. Then you folks called it “dissent”, “patriotism”, and “protecting the nation from irresponsible policies.” We are just playing by your side’s rules.
As for balls — I’ve got ’em, you don’t. And MicHELLe keep’s Barry’s locked in a box on the dresser.
By the way, I never said I think society will crumble — indeed, I suggested that I believe the proper way to achieve the end of gay marriage is through the democratic process. You really might consider a remedial reading class.
Geezer — we’ve seen the damage caused by no-fault divorce.
Actually, MJ, by the definition of marriage that Western society has held to for the last few thousand years, yes it does take one of each. That you want to change the definition to get rid of that inconvenient fact does not make the fact go away.
Listen, wanker, do us all a favor and stop trolling here with your teabagging, moral supremacist drivel. It’s getting quite boring. You’re as stupid and asinine as RWR. Shouldn’t you be knocking on some doors, Christine?
pretty sure dems voted for rethuglican bills and proposals. I know youll try and argu reality, but this horde of Rs have totally abused the filibuster on almost every single peice of legislation…. even equality for women (IN 2009!!!)
re-write history all you want. the republicans of this congress have no interest in the democratic process.
And again i will say, when there is a social or moral injustice… even if a “majority” backs it, it doesnt make it right. Sometimes, when the people are wrong the courts can rule on the side of right. It happened many times when Conservatives refused to let black people drink from their water fountains…. there was racial segregation for thousands of years too. wanna go all Randy NoZe on that one?
Uh-oh. Are you about to go into a “father’s rights” rant about no-fault divorce? Or do you have some other objection that doesn’t amount to calling for government involvement in private lives?