i've been advised not to make my true thoughts on this matter public.

needless to say, it involves something sharp going into something soft.

How ironic. Outside of Albert Belle, I can't think of any other player who'd I rather NOT see reproduce. What a turd.

Not that I needed another excuse to despise Jeff Kent, but in case I wanted for one, here's another.

I have no respect for people who think doing something like this is somehow moral or admirable. Some people are gay and some people aren't. If you think God irrevocably damned your neighbors by making them gay, don't add compound the injury by taking away their rights.

Those Todd Jones quotes didn't bother me, because that was just his feelings. But this does. Actually taking the initiative to take people's rights away? What a bunch of arseholes. (I refer to all the legions of people who have funded this sort of ballot initiative)

We Dodger fans mourn. Then again, he didn't exactly announce it publicly, and a guy has the right to support whatever side he wishes, as long as he's not a belligerent jackass about it.

The LDS church has spent a lot of time and money supporting this proposition, and while I'm certain he's Mormon, he is listed on the famous Mormon site:

Link

I'm so glad to see that people can focus on what really matters, you know like two people in love making some people feel icky.

Jeff Kent strikes me as the kind of guy whod take you down to the basement and show you blowjob porn, then look at you while you watch it, smiling, shaking his head, and asking 'what you think about that one, huh?'

With both sides spending upward of $30 million each

Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!

And I'd make a crack about there being better uses for $30 M but, this being California, all you get for that is a few years of Juan Pierre or Gary Matthews Jr or about 1.5 seasons of Zito.

a guy has the right to support whatever side he wishes, as long as he's not a belligerent jackass about it.

not true or I'd never get to express my opinion on anything. :-) OK, I'm rarely belligerent.

If I had to look at Andruw Jones and Joe Torre naked every day, I might go all homophobic too.

I have no respect for people who think doing something like this is somehow moral or admirable.

Waiting for kevin to drop by with his thinly veiled homophobia on 3... 2... 1...

Then again, he didn't exactly announce it publicly, and a guy has the right to support whatever side he wishes, as long as he's not a belligerent jackass about it.

Not a belligerent jackass?

Is this some new universe I just woke up in?

I hate to be so black and white and viciously judgmental about this, but the people voting YES on this proposition deserve multiple years and levels of unhappiness to plague them.

It takes me hours to calm down enough to be that generous, too.

Nah, you're cool. In my case, it confirms a couple of my prejudices.

One, US Catholics and the whole of the observant LDS flock are entirely worthy of all the opprobrium ever heaped on them. I spent around a decade trying to be nice to that lot. After this, #### it: if I can piss on their graves, I shall.

Two, the yes-on-8 crowd is wrong on the merits. Did you ever doubt it? They would have kept Kent and fired Bonds. I mean, Kent hit pretty well for a 2B. Bonds was the best hitter in history between Williams and Pujols.

On the bright side, when this turd passes, I will feel no guilt mocking Mormons in public. They want tolerance, they have to give it first.

Waiting for kevin to drop by with his thinly veiled homophobia on 3... 2... 1...

This website is so much better with him gone.

I am confused. Kent is the GAYEST dude on the team!

I am confused. Kent is the GAYEST dude on the team!

It's called projection.

As a resident of Austin, I am offended that Jeff Kent lists this as his address.

There's only room for one Jeff K. who likes baseball, drives a truck, and vocally hates on gays to make himself more secure in his sexuality in spite of the sweet, sweet dreams he has every night, and that role is filled. Um, by someone else.

I hate to be so black and white and viciously judgmental about this

Actually, gay marriage is a pretty direct result of the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws. George Wallace tried to warn us, dammit! He tried to warn us!

All I know is that San Francisco's Jeff Kent got a limp wrist in 2003 while secretly popping a hard tail, but made up a queer alibi about soaping up one of his pickups that he expected the men directly over him to swallow.

When I saw this headline, the first thing I thought is that he must be LDS.

I'm LDS (as I've stated elsewhere), but I don't actively support this initiative. I see no reason to deny rights to others based on my personal religious beliefs. I see it doing more harm than good to the church in the long run. It's one thing to be doctrinally opposed to homosexuality, but must we force non-believers to conform to the same rules?

Believe me, that's a very unpopular opinion in Utah (outside downtown Salt Lake City, that is). Luckily, my wife and I are going to be here in China until at least next May, so the two of us don't have to worry too much about this.

All I know is that San Francisco's Jeff Kent got a limp wrist in 2003 while secretly popping a hard tail, but made up a queer alibi about soaping up one of his pickups that he expected the men directly over him to swallow.

Well played.

Actually, gay marriage is a pretty direct result of the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws. George Wallace tried to warn us, dammit! He tried to warn us!

Which makes me wonder- will we see polygamy legalization 50 years in the future? I tend to doubt it, for a number of reasons, but there is that slippery slope.*

* I have no personal issue with polygamy outside of it's traditional use as a reinforcement of patriarchal culture, when was the last time you heard of a woman with two husbands? That and the havoc it'd play with the tax code.

By the way, I'm very happy that the anti-miscegnation laws were repealed, since my wife comes from Taiwan. If polygamy is ever legalized, the LDS church will enter a state of chaos.

I'm trying to figure out how closed-minded bigotry, hatred, self-righteousness, and ideological intolerance are supposed to convince enough undecided people to win an election. I don't think it will. Which is why, judging only by the comments on this thread, California will lose gay marriage next month.

A bit more rational thinking on all sides, please.

I basically could not solidly be more in the "civil unions for all" plank Kodos has. Let the religions keep their term and definition. Let the straights, the gays, the little people, the sexually deviant and the innocently pure unite with whomever the #### they want, give 'em all the same rights under the law by definition and be done with those whole stupid ass debate. I really wish I could kick Rove in the nuts. You have to respect his abilities, but #######, the country has been "debating" this thing that most people didn't give two shits about it in 2003.

I don't say this out of political expediency, but because honestly, it's the way to get it done. There's between a 12-15% jump from "support gay marriage" to "support civil union". It's a word. And while I wish the LDS and whomever else would treat gay people the way they want to be treated themselves, there's no win fighting for the marriage term. There's a really good <a href=http://www.pollster.com/blogs/gay_marriage_support_and_oppos.php">article on Pollster</a> covering this.

If polygamy is ever legalized, the LDS church will enter a state of chaos.

If polygamy is ever legalized, you'd have a BYU campus filled with horny RMs wondering why those old guys up in Temple Square won't finally accept the new modern re-definition of marriage. The chaos would come in seeing how fast the Relief Societies suddenly became political activist organizations.

Since I've pretty much ignored the debate, the religious baiting here inspired me to check out the reasons for Mormon support of the measure. They had some well-articulated reasons.

Well articulated bigotry, eloquent attempts to repress others, is still bigotry and repression.

Meanwhile, blaming the Mormons for putting buggering up your social views isn't new. The Inquisitors did the same to the Protestants and and the Ukranian pogromists did the same to the Jews

Homosexuals are the new Inquisitors. Actually, that explains quite a bit.

where did the quotes in 26 and 27 come from? an edited #23?

Jeff: I completely agree with you, but I just don't see it happening from a legislative standpoint. And if we're going to have civil marriage, it needs to be civil marriage for all, not just for the straight folk.

Homosexuals are the new Inquisitors. Actually, that explains quite a bit.

Perhaps overstated, but it doesn't take a stretch to think that it Prop. 8 passes that 2% of the population is going to be scapegoated in an extraordinary way based on their religious views. So, in that sense, the Inquisitors would be people like a lot of the posters on this thread.

In any case, the overly heated rhetoric isn't convincing anyone, but it is stirring up hatred against Mormons among those of a certain mindset. Perhaps that's the goal.

Sean, I'm not seeing the well-articulated reasons in that link.

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

So the rights of the gays are okay, as long as they don't interfere with the LDS going about its business? Nobody's telling the LDS that they have to let two guys in drag marry in their church. This is a non-starter.

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.

1) ########. I'm sure that's true in some cultures, but I really hate people who go all framer's intent on the Constitution. Especially when they're claiming a subtext that is a long, long way off from explicit. And more especially when those same people believe another document is inviolate scripture.
2) So? Things change. "Throughout the ages, governments of all types have recognized and affirmed economic success as a valuable national goal. Regardless of whether the black race is actually inferior, minorities in almost every culture have been granted the ability to work as slave labor. Their masters do not receive this benefit to elevate them above any minority person , but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important cash the South is pulling in with those cotton exports." That's not a legitimate argument in 1860, either.

Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – come increasingly under assault.

That right there is the mark of zealotry. The concept of family is not "under assault". It does not need to be "defended". Some people that aren't allowed to marry would like to. Is McDonald's under assault when a couple of people walk in the door with no shoes on?

As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children.

Of course. But when Mommy doesn't like men or Daddy doesn't like women, this is kind of moot. One of three things can happen, and you can't honestly say the first two are better than the third:

1) Mommy and Daddy stay together even though one or both are gay
2) Mommy and Daddy split up, but neither can keep the kid (because families are only a mommy and daddy and children and this right is paramount, all children of divorced parents must be given up for adoption, again only by nuclear families)
3) Mommy and Daddy find people they are happy with, and they figure out custody

Traditional marriage is important. So is gay marriage, and any other kind of union and commitment that is a demonstration to a child of good things.

Then there's some randomness, some claptrap about how "tolerance" does not mean "condoning" (I wonder how fast that would change if some candidate said "I tolerate Mormons, but I don't condone them.")

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

That is the most spectacularly written paragraph I can imagine. It's chock-full of wild assertions, circular logic, and begging the question.

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral.

Even better! Boy, I sure remember the class *I* took in grade school where they told us all about the legal definition of marriage. I got a C on the pop quiz because I couldn't remember if automatic inheritance provisions for immediate family members were done nationally or state-by-state....Wait, that didn't happen. That has never happened ever in a public school.

Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life.

That the writer does not see the irony of this paragraph is very amusing.

When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.

The last paragraph of the piece is as good evidence as any that this is just another "zomg the gays" rant by a church.

---

I'm all in favor of the Mormons, the Catholics, the Jews, the Satanists and Queer Eye for the Big Guy in the Sky having and voicing their opinions. But that doesn't mean we're all supposed to pretend that these things don't always boil down to the same thing in the end: "We don't want gays to marry. It's wrong and dirty, and somehow it means my kid might grow up gay, or children of gay parents will become gay and the gays will take over, or all the gay children will turn into drug-zombied rapists and axe murderers." With not a shred of evidence to back up the overall assertion.

where did the quotes in 26 and 27 come from? an edited #23?

Yeah, I figured adding to the fire wasn't going to help. Can't imagine why I thought that - people here are particularly kind and generous to those with non-orthodox opinions, especially on the political threads.

Jeff -

I appreciate that you took the time to respond to this. Much of your disagreement is opinion-based and - although you have a clearly hostile tone - you have a right to your opinion. However, the religious-freedom argument is a serious one and one you seriously misapprehend. You wrote:

Nobody's telling the LDS that they have to let two guys in drag marry in their church. This is a non-starter.

Actually, you're probably wrong here, at least as far as future state non-discrimination laws are concerned. It is probable that the state would revoke the rights of religious pastors to legally marry if they don't agree to abide by state non-discrimination laws - it makes no sense not to. The Massachusetts Catholic adoption agency precedent was very quickly set - the Catholics were not allowed to facilitate adoptions unless they adopted a non-discrimination policy toward same-sex couples. Thus, Catholic religious freedom was impinged - rather than violate their religious principles, the Catholics got out of the adoption business. Again, perhaps that's the goal.

It is possible that a system could be set up like in France, where religious marriage ceremonies are not recognized by the state at all - many people there have two ceremonies, one at church and one at a courthouse - but that's a far cry from stating that things will be hunky-dory for the future of religious freedom.

Oh, and so I'm clear, I'm not attacking you, Sean. I get a little irritated when people claim a set of rights for themselves and deny it to others. Hypocrisy is one thing I cannot stand; say what you believe and do what you say, otherwise you've given me zero reason to listen to or respect you *or* your opinions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and has the right to give voice to it, but if you say one thing and yet do another, or say one thing for this group and change the story for others, you lose your ability to demand moral weight to that opinion. But that's just mine.

So I apologize if #30, when you read it, comes off as an attack against you or the LDS. It's not intended as such. It's an attack against weak argumentation dressed up. If the objection is based on your religious views, let's put that out there and be honest. Let's don't play this silly "Look, we can prove how gay marriage equals crime/death/tax dodging in three steps" game where people have to waste time addressing unfounded assertions.

Hey Jeff, that's fair. It's a lot better to see someone engage the argument than make statements like #13.

Yeah, I figured adding to the fire wasn't going to help. Can't imagine why I thought that - people here are particularly kind and generous to those with non-orthodox opinions, especially on the political threads.

So your first response to the "orthodoxy" is to call homosexuals and their allies the equivalent of Jew killers and torturers. Yeah, golly, it's the mainstream of this site that's the problem here. Not that, y'know, the LDS church has spent tens of millions on making civil marriage illegal in California and using downright false reasons for their concern, which is why people are picking on them along with many other groups who are funding the fight against gay marriage.

Gee, we're pretty much gearing up to knock down the temple in Salt Lake City with our pogrom. And I say we because in response to one post, you include the whole of BTF.

#######.

That ####### chimp ate my post. *shakes fist* Summary:

It is possible that a system could be set up like in France, where religious marriage ceremonies are not recognized by the state at all - many people there have two ceremonies, one at church and one at a courthouse - but that's a far cry from stating that things will be hunky-dory for the future of religious freedom.

And that's what should happen. A long time ago, kind of out of default because they were around before the government and already in the business, churches were allowed to marry people. Why not revisit the concept of religious organizations being able to grant legal rights? They should be allowed to facilitate things (like adoption), but in the end, the actual granting of rights should be done by signing a piece of paper at the courthouse (or whatever mechanism.) Splitting it off gives everybody what they want. Everybody but the people who want zero compromise, those on one side who demand no rights for gay couples, and those on the other who demand to be married by Pink Elvis in St. Patrick's.

Actually, you're probably wrong here, at least as far as future state non-discrimination laws are concerned. It is probable that the state would revoke the rights of religious pastors to legally marry if they don't agree to abide by state non-discrimination laws - it makes no sense not to. The Massachusetts Catholic adoption agency precedent was very quickly set - the Catholics were not allowed to facilitate adoptions unless they adopted a non-discrimination policy toward same-sex couples. Thus, Catholic religious freedom was impinged - rather than violate their religious principles, the Catholics got out of the adoption business. Again, perhaps that's the goal.

Oh for the love of Pete. Do you even know what incorporation of the First Amendment means? It means that the minute someone tries to force the LDS to gay marry two men wearing only assless chaps, they're gonna get hauled in front of the federal court, and you're going to see the law or regulation overturned IMMEDIATELY.

This is a non-starter, and in NO WAY comparable to the State of Massachusetts setting the law for how their adoption agencies are run. The adoption agencies are not in any way a part of the Catholic faith, instead they are a charitable program run through the church. You would see the exact same thing happen if the Catholic adoption agencies tried to prevent a mixed race couple from adopting on "religious" grounds.

This is exactly the sort of bogus argument raised by the LDS that makes them so worthy of ridicule, and what makes their multimillion dollar ad campaign so heinous. By lying to voters about what gay marriage entails they seek to poison the attitude of the populace against it, all to impose their moral code upon the general population. If that isn't a quick ticket to Hell, I don't want any part of Heaven.

Splitting it off gives everybody what they want. Everybody but the people who want zero compromise, those on one side who demand no rights for gay couples, and those on the other who demand to be married by Pink Elvis in St. Patrick's.

The fact is, there are a lot more people in the former group than in the latter. And given that "anti-gay marriage" is in large part a cover for anti-gay rights in general, you're not going to get much traction in a legislature where one party worries about looking too pro-gay and the other actively recruits it's legislators from those who are anti-gay in the first place.

To be honest, outside of its role in a person's religious life, I don't think marriage is an inalienable right. It qualifies under "pursuit of happiness", but Primer could qualify as that, and there's no strict scrutiny applied to the registration page here. It has become one as institutions have built up (such as the tax code) that give benefits to those who are married. Those things, such as equal protection under the law, are the inalienable rights.

The problem arises when an organization that has known, inherent biases (the Catholic Church, for example; and yes, I'm Catholic) gets to hand out rights. That's at odds with the concept of inalienability. At the least, it's a poor tactical decision. You wouldn't let the KKK decide who gets to go to school. Now, the Catholic Church isn't the KKK, but it does have biases against certain people, and that can't be allowed in this context.

The fact is, there are a lot more people in the former group than in the latter.

True. But if the moderate middle outweighs the edges, we get sensible things. That Pollster link shows you a majority of people support gay marriage or civil union. A minority oppose gay marriage. Out of political expediency and because winning on the term "marriage" doesn't mean jack ####, meet in the middle and everyone is happy. Except the true zealots on both sides, and honestly, #### 'em.

Those things, such as equal protection under the law, are the inalienable rights.

Which is where civil marriage or civil unions becomes an issue when we're allowing it only for straight couples but not gay ones. Of course, we could just abolish marriage altogether, I suppose, and make it a strictly religious thing that the government plays no part in. But the moment you give straight couples different rights than gay ones even if both are married in a church that accepts them you've got a problem under the 14th amendment.

Jeff: I was more referring to the point that we don't have legislatures that reflect the moderate viewpoint on these types of things. Take abortion rights, for example. 65% of Americans routinely say that Roe v. Wade should be upheld, with the implication that abortion for choice is at least at some point in the pregnancy acceptable. We do not have that type of consensus in either the house or the senate, however, in large part because for most of the people who oppose Roe it is their single most important issue that they vote on (it's hard to say "well, i don't like babykilling, but energy policy is more important to me when it comes to picking a candidate") whereas for the other 65% abortion rights are rarely the burning issue that makes them choose which candidate to choose.

I'm disappointed, after post 1 I expected more gay imagery in this thread.

Anybody else getting an ad about gay singles?

Nope, just you. God is trying to tell you something...

Yeah, what I don't understand is why people just don't take the rights out of marriage, rather than try to give the marriage (and the rights) to homosexuals. It's so much easier. By the way, one of the candidates for President holds exactly this view.

What's infinitely more annoying is that, to the best of my knowledge, THE WORLD ALREADY OPERATES THIS WAY. In most (if not all) states, I can get a bum on the street to pronounce me man and wife with some random girl (even in spite of the fact that I'm already married). It can be my own church and we can even pick some random group to discriminate against (like bloggers). But it doesn't mean anything unless I have the piece of paper from the government saying that we're legally married. All that needs to be done is focus on the piece of paper and change it's name. A certificate of civil union vs. a certificate of marriage. Most people won't even notice when they sign it...

So frustrating, but not surprising. The more that both sides irrationally argue about things with obvious solutions, driven by the ideologues on both sides, the longer that the crooks who rob the people blind can perpetuate their fraud upon the citizenry.

Why the Fukc is there a "yes on 8" ad on the sidebar? Is BTF accepting money from those people?????

The economy is so sh!tty, I'm considering dumping my poverty stricken girlfriend and marrying some rich dude. If it's good for Jack Lemmon, it's good for me!

Why the Fukc is there a "yes on 8" ad on the sidebar? Is BTF accepting money from those people?????


Google Adsense

But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life.

That the writer does not see the irony of this paragraph is very amusing.

It would be amusing if they weren't so hellbent on cramming these absurd beliefs down the rest of our throats. Oh, and #### Jeff Kent.

I am confused. Kent is the GAYEST dude on the team!

His moustache alone needs its own porn name!

"It is possible that a system could be set up like in France, where religious marriage ceremonies are not recognized by the state at all..."

Which is just as it should be.

But I'm not seeing a case where churches will be forced to marry gays in any event. I mean, if a Buddhist and a Scientologist walked up to a priest, they couldn't legally compel him to marry them, could they? Churches are allowed to limit access to their services to those who are members of the church... and most of the churches that are upset about gay marriage have rules against homosexual behavior by their members.

Religious people are so cute when they try to pretend their beliefs are based on reason.

But I'm not seeing a case where churches will be forced to marry gays in any event. I mean, if a Buddhist and a Scientologist walked up to a priest, they couldn't legally compel him to marry them, could they? Churches are allowed to limit access to their services to those who are members of the church

That's how it works in Canada - gay marriage is legal, and recognized by the Canadian government. However, no church or private institution is compelled to marry two gay individuals - it is completely at that organization's discretion. In the event that a member of a church isn't willing to perform the ceremony, there's always a suitable government official available.

It's worked out so far. Civilization hasn't collapsed, and there have been no reported incidents of any church being forced to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone they didn't want to marry (except for a wide assortment of heterosexual couples who everyone could see were heading for a divorce even before they said "I do").

His moustache alone needs its own porn name!

He should call it Jump Kunt.

(sorry)

Meanwhile, blaming the Mormons for putting buggering up your social views isn't new. The Inquisitors did the same to the Protestants and and the Ukranian pogromists did the same to the Jews

The Nazis made the Jews wear pieces of flair.

Why the Fukc is there a "yes on 8" ad on the sidebar?

Because you aren't using Firefox Adblock

All I know is that San Francisco's Jeff Kent got a limp wrist in 2003 while secretly popping a hard tail, but made up a queer alibi about soaping up one of his pickups that he expected the men directly over him to swallow.

This ... is beautiful.

Meanwhile, blaming the Mormons for putting buggering up your social views isn't new. The Inquisitors did the same to the Protestants and and the Ukranian pogromists did the same to the Jews

What does this sentence even mean?

After this, #### it: if I can piss on their graves, I shall.

Perhaps you should ask your doctor about Flomax.

If you look at US laws and culture over the last hundred years or so, I can't think of a single generally accepted measure which restricts rights; any rights. Meanwhile, pushes to bestow not previously-existing rights have been largely successful.

I'm biased, but I think history is solidly against "culture warriors". They can slow down progress, but they can't stop it.

I'm not seeing a case where churches will be forced to marry gays

Neither am I. The Catholic Church is still formally opposed to marrying divorced straight people, after all. Nobody's abolishing the civil validity of Catholic weddings on account of that.

Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: October 30, 2008 at 10:26 AM (#2999517)
Meanwhile, blaming the Mormons for putting buggering up your social views isn't new. The Inquisitors did the same to the Protestants and and the Ukranian pogromists did the same to the Jews

What does this sentence even mean?

LDS == Jews, GLBTs == pogromist? Or something equally stupid.

I didn't know Clinton, Biden and Obama were all LDS.

Part of the story behind Prop 8 is that a few years ago Californians voted against allowing gay marriage by a clear majority. It was overturned in court, and there is not a little resentment that the wishes of the majority were overturned. That, along with a very effective ad that shows Mayor Newsome saying "Gay marriage is here...whether you like it or not!" has gained much support for the Yes on 8 camp. All that being said, No on 8 is leading fairly comfortably, and the measure isn't going to pass.

If you look at US laws and culture over the last hundred years or so, I can't think of a single generally accepted measure which restricts rights; any rights.

Eighteenth Amendment - Prohibition of alcohol
Executive Order 9066 - internment of Japanese
Bowers v. Hardwick - upheld criminalization of sodomy
Controlled Substance Act of 1970 - criminalized marijiuana
The Patriot Act

Out of political expediency and because winning on the term "marriage" doesn't mean jack ####, meet in the middle and everyone is happy. Except the true zealots on both sides, and honestly, #### 'em.

Jeff, explain how, to a gay person who wants to get married, this argument amounts to anything more than "separate but equal is OK as long as the rights truly are equal". I get what you're saying, and I don't necessarily disagree with it, but the argument cuts both ways. If I understand you correctly, you're essentially saying that civil unions (or whatever one wants to call them) are legally the same as marriage, so let's settle on civil unions. Well, if that's the case, and all of the legal rights are the same, then what's the problem with just going to full nine and calling it marriage? The only reason not to completely extend the right, including the term marriage, is to restrict some segment of society from being able to call themselves legally married.

Jeff, explain how, to a gay person who wants to get married, this argument amounts to anything more than "separate but equal is OK as long as the rights truly are equal".

Because the only difference is in name. If segregation had meant "Okay, the black kids will be in the same school, but we'll just *say* there's something different", then that'd be analagous.

The only reason not to completely extend the right, including the term marriage, is to restrict some segment of society from being able to call themselves legally married.

No, it's to get it actually done. If I were gay, I'd rather have civil unions now than rancor for 10 years and then "marriage". I don't speak for them, though.

For whatever reason, some are hung up on the word. Screw the word, then. Let them have "marriage" in a church, and let everyone have civil unions. If it gets it done one day quicker, why the hell not?

Eighteenth Amendment - Prohibition of alcohol
Executive Order 9066 - internment of Japanese
Bowers v. Hardwick - upheld criminalization of sodomy
Controlled Substance Act of 1970 - criminalized marijiuana
The Patriot Act

I think you're helping my point, although I admit that I didn't state it correctly before.

The first three acts made a lot of sense at the time, but history judges them pretty badly. I'd say that they were long-term losers. Even if I grant that the marijuana act is "generally accepted" and "longterm", I think it's way too early to declare this for the PATRIOT Act. And (at least in my circles), the early returns on PATRIOT aren't good.

when was the last time you heard of a woman with two husbands?

In India: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/24/polygamy.investigation/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

Oh for the love of Pete. Do you even know what incorporation of the First Amendment means? It means that the minute someone tries to force the LDS to gay marry two men wearing only assless chaps, they're gonna get hauled in front of the federal court, and you're going to see the law or regulation overturned IMMEDIATELY.

This is a non-starter, and in NO WAY comparable to the State of Massachusetts setting the law for how their adoption agencies are run. The adoption agencies are not in any way a part of the Catholic faith, instead they are a charitable program run through the church. You would see the exact same thing happen if the Catholic adoption agencies tried to prevent a mixed race couple from adopting on "religious" grounds.

Shorter Scott: yes, it will happen, but we'll pretend it isn't by saying that it's not really a religious function but just something that happens to be done by a religious institution.

And, no, it isn't an outlier, because California now forces Catholic Charities to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees, which has the advantage of being both a violation of Free Exercise and economically illiterate. (It makes no sense conceptually for insurance to pay for contraception; that's welfare, not insurance.)

For the sake of clarity, contrary to Scott's description, the adoption agencies in question were not "trying to prevent" anybody from adopting; they were simply not providing the service themselves. Which is why his distinction is a non-starter and why his claim that this won't happen is unconvincing to anybody who has followed the course of "anti-discrimination" law in the U.S.

Interesting how the comments started out more emotional, or at least, not trying to be persuasive, then a more substantive discussion broke out.

Not much to say here, was just tired of seeing the number of comments being "69" on this thread.

It makes no sense conceptually for insurance to pay for contraception

Why not?

Pregnancy is very expensive. I'd think insurers would want to avoid that.

If you look at US laws and culture over the last hundred years or so, I can't think of a single generally accepted measure which restricts rights; any rights.

Well, unless one considers the right of free association or the right of freedom of contract to be rights.

It makes no sense conceptually for insurance to pay for contraception

Why not?

Because insurance is the pooling of risk. The expense of buying birth control each month isn't a risk; it's simply a choice to incur it or not. It would be like automobile insurance providing coverage for a monthly car wash.

Well, unless one considers the right of free association or the right of freedom of contract to be rights.

Please be more specific. I think I know where you're going on this, but I don't want to respond until I'm sure.

here we go again, not on our own

- there are 2 groups of people against gay marriage

1 - the people who say it is against their religion and are forgetting about the separation of church and state

2 - the people who really REALLY think that once gays get to marry by a JP then they will force the churches to have to marry them under civil rights law.

all the stuff about you need a man and woman in a family unit for children is a lot of horsepoopoo anyhow. gays been adopting kids for a LONG time. and lesbians have gone to fertility clinics for a dose.

i don't see the anti gay/anti abortion people having this huge movement where they adopt all the teen runaways and CHILDREN (not infants) who are out there and got no homes. and until i see that, i got NO respect for them and them screeching about how they pro "family" and (especially) pro "life"

i also find it interesting that all the religious anti-gays drag out leviticus as proof while eating shrimps and wearing clothes with 2 fibers in them.

sigh

as for polygamy,

well, ain't real too many females who grow up here in america and go to regular skoolz and watch tv would agree to share a man. unless he filthy rich and they want some of the money and don't care real too particular much about where it come from. but i seriously doubt you would have 2 adult females in 1 house sharing 1 man without some SERIOUS war. and it is tough enuf for a man to handle 1 woman (sez my own husband) let alone 2 or more. and i disbelieve for 1 second that the fantasy about 2 females who are only interested in making the man happy exists ANYwhere.

even my brother the playa sez it would be pure he!l to have 2 wives under 1 roof. it is bad enuf having 2 gf under different roofs.

as for polyandry,

- as a woman who lives with her husband, adult brother, 3 sons, 3 male dogs
all i can say is
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
- keeping ONE husband in line is tough enuf

Because insurance is the pooling of risk. The expense of buying birth control each month isn't a risk; it's simply a choice to incur it or not. It would be like automobile insurance providing coverage for a monthly car wash.

That's a poor analogy. It would be more like automobile insurance providing for maintenance on your brakes. A reasonable expense in order to prevent potential future greater expense for the insurer.

"Neither am I. The Catholic Church is still formally opposed to marrying divorced straight people, after all. Nobody's abolishing the civil validity of Catholic weddings on account of that."

And to the best of my knowledge, priests are still allowed to deny communion to parishioners they consider to be unready or undeserving, which would seem to be another analogous situation.

as for polygamy,

well, ain't real too many females who grow up here in america and go to regular skoolz and watch tv would agree to share a man. unless he filthy rich and they want some of the money and don't care real too particular much about where it come from. but i seriously doubt you would have 2 adult females in 1 house sharing 1 man without some SERIOUS war. and it is tough enuf for a man to handle 1 woman (sez my own husband) let alone 2 or more. and i disbelieve for 1 second that the fantasy about 2 females who are only interested in making the man happy exists ANYwhere.

Uhh, this IS a gay marriage thread you know ;).

Should I be more explicit?

Bigamy already has a built-in punishment. More than one wife.

That's a poor analogy. It would be more like automobile insurance providing for maintenance on your brakes. A reasonable expense in order to prevent potential future greater expense for the insurer.

1) If it actually prevented greater expense -- IOW, if on net it saved money -- then legislation wouldn't be needed to force coverage of it. But the only way it would is if people wouldn't use birth control without insurance coverage, which is obviously not the case.
2) Automobile insurance doesn't cover maintenance on your brakes either, and nobody sensibly thinks it should. (Certainly nobody is proposing legislation to require that.) Why? Again, because it doesn't make sense. There's no risk to pool; almost everyone who owns a car has to incur the expense, so all you're doing is shifting money around to no effect.

A reasonable expense in order to prevent potential future greater expense for the insurer

Which is why insurers often pay for checkups, dental cleanings, immunizations, screenings, and all other sorts of prophylaxis. Though one difference is that pregnancy, while requiring medical care, isn't an illness. Some people actively want to get pregnant. Contraception is conceptually a bit different from preventive medicine of other sorts.

That's a poor analogy. It would be more like automobile insurance providing for maintenance on your brakes. A reasonable expense in order to prevent potential future greater expense for the insurer.

Well, there's no really good analogy. Insurance is going to cover a pregnancy whether the insured chooses to get pregnant or not. Most people don't choose to have their brakes fail and ram someone, but it's certainly better than the car wash analogy.

Still, I have to think the cost of the contraception provided is tiny compared to the other medical issues covered by the insurance, so it's probably not something to get worked up over. Unless we're talking about contraception via a medical procedure, in which case, the coverage is probably due to it actually being a medical procedure.

The economy is so sh!tty, I'm considering dumping my poverty stricken girlfriend and marrying some rich dude. If it's good for Jack Lemmon, it's good for me!

You'll more likely end up shacking up with a tenor sax player who's passing himself off as the heir to Shell Oil... always the fuzzy end of the lollipop.

rfloh Posted: October 30, 2008 at 11:26 AM (#2999593)

as for polygamy,


Uhh, this IS a gay marriage thread you know ;).

Should I be more explicit?

- gay? did u say gay?

look

if straight guys can have fantasies about 2 "lesbians," then straight grrrrls can have fantasies about 2 luscious "gays"

and i certainly COULD be lots more explicit. except i will get furtadoed to ban land with kevin

86. baseball chick Posted: October 30, 2008 at 11:38 AM (#2999614)
rfloh Posted: October 30, 2008 at 11:26 AM (#2999593)

as for polygamy,


Uhh, this IS a gay marriage thread you know ;).

Should I be more explicit?

- gay? did u say gay?

look

if straight guys can have fantasies about 2 "lesbians," then straight grrrrls can have fantasies about 2 luscious "gays"

and i certainly COULD be lots more explicit. except i will get furtadoed to ban land with kevin

By "gay" thread, I mean gay, lesbian, bi, transgender.

Those 2 women don't just have to share the guy, you know. There are other things they can do.

What's the big deal, gay men don't need contraceptives, uh, waitaminut...

Which is why insurers often pay for checkups, dental cleanings, immunizations, screenings, and all other sorts of prophylaxis. Though one difference is that pregnancy, while requiring medical care, isn't an illness. Some people actively want to get pregnant. Contraception is conceptually a bit different from preventive medicine of other sorts.

In real life, pregnancy is not an illness, but economically, that is exactly how it is treated. Employers treat it as short-term disability and insurers treat it as a hospital visit to be paid for the same as having one's appendix out. Anything that prevents an unwanted hospital visit or short-term disability would seem to me to be worth the expense. in that sense it is very much like a daily immunization.

Well, unless one considers the right of free association or the right of freedom of contract to be rights.

Please be more specific. I think I know where you're going on this, but I don't want to respond until I'm sure.

Same place I'm always going when I raise these issues. The state tells us who we can associate with and on what terms -- or, more precisely, who we can refuse to associate with -- commercially and socially. We used to have the right to decide; we no longer do. (Or, rather, we still have the right, but the government violates it.)

The state tells us under what terms we can work for someone, and whether we can work in a given field at all. We used to have the right to decide for ourselves whether the terms of employment are fair; the state no longer recognizes such a right.

and i certainly COULD be lots more explicit.

No need.

We already know one is Jody Gerut and Brad Ausmus.

And the other is BLB squared.

I would fantsize about your getting private with other BTF female posters if we had any other than the occasional Portia Stanke Cardinal-lovefest drive-bys

I would fantsize about your getting private with other BTF female posters if we had any other than the occasional Portia Stanke Cardinal-lovefest drive-bys


Well, there is your mom.

robin dahling,

i would say u know me too well, except for u thinking that i would get down with any other female.

eeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwww

and yes. brad and jody. mmmmmmmmmm. finger lickin good....

BLB - i do hope you meaning barry lamar bonds and not bad little boy (my son)

barry lamar was an absolutely beautiful male. before the, um, excess muscles on the head/body and the, um, decreased muscle somewheres else

Same place I'm always going when I raise these issues. The state tells us who we can associate with and on what terms -- or, more precisely, who we can refuse to associate with -- commercially and socially. We used to have the right to decide; we no longer do. (Or, rather, we still have the right, but the government violates it.)

The state tells us under what terms we can work for someone, and whether we can work in a given field at all. We used to have the right to decide for ourselves whether the terms of employment are fair; the state no longer recognizes such a right.

I don't think the government abridges your rights, as an individual, to associate with or without whom you wish. Please give me an example of where it does. Commercially, that is a different matter. The constitution makes no guarantees to businesses regarding freedom of association or the right to set employment terms without government interference.

The limits to your freedom start where it infringes on the freedom of others, and the limits to your business's freedom start wherever the government/society says it does.

Well, there is your mom.

AFAIK, she only lurks here, to keep an eye on you. But then, maybe she is posting as "BeanoCook" as some kind of GObama psy ops thing.

except for u thinking that i would get down with any other female

This being why I said "fantasize."

barry lamar was an absolutely beautiful male. before the, um, excess muscles on the head/body and the, um, decreased muscle somewheres else

.

Well, kevin's banned, so someone had to say it.

The Jeff Kent Gay Marriage thread has exposed the vulnerabilities of the All-Purpose Politics Thread.

I thought the commercial with the little girl who's taught she can marry a princess was hilarious, until I realized it was probably effective with some people.

BLB - i do hope you meaning barry lamar bonds and not bad little boy (my son)

A third BLB lurks.

bunyon Posted: October 30, 2008 at 11:52 AM (#2999629)

I would fantsize about your getting private with other BTF female posters if we had any other than the occasional Portia Stanke Cardinal-lovefest drive-bys


Well, there is your mom.

- MY mom?????
well, she IS pretty fine for, um, uh, oldern you (ahem) after 5 kidz...

I don't think the government abridges your rights, as an individual, to associate with or without whom you wish. Please give me an example of where it does. Commercially, that is a different matter. The constitution makes no guarantees to businesses regarding freedom of association or the right to set employment terms without government interference.

1) I didn't say anything about the constitution; the topic was our rights.
2) I didn't say anything about businesses, either. The government restricts commercial activities by individuals, not "just" businesses. (As if businesses weren't made up of individuals.) And it restricts non-commercial activities, such as social organizations, as well.

The limits to your freedom start where it infringes on the freedom of others, and the limits to your business's freedom start wherever the government/society says it does.

No. Government doesn't define limits to freedom. Obviously one cannot infringe on the freedom of others, but there's no "freedom" to compel me to serve you.