US Constitutiona Amendment to Save Marriage...NOW!

Self | 11-18-03 | Always Right

[Typesbad]

I apologize for coming off smug and believe me I don't consider myself too good or in anyway immune from marital problems. I've had my share of rocky moments in the last two decades.

I agree that this is a matter of gay couples expecting equal rights under the law - that they as committed couples should be entitled to the same rights as married couples when it comes to civil law.

You state:

"The societal trend of allowing random sex partners being 'married' and having the same rights as those who consider marriage as a sacred duty aimed towards the creation and development of a family."

Lets take the last part first. That sister of mine who just celebrated her 31 year anniversary. No Kids. Never intended to have kids. Argue with that decision of you want, but should that nullify their marriage?

I'm sorry but in civil law, marriage is not defined as an institution designed for the creation of children. Civil law recognizes certain rights that pertain to couples who have stated a life-long commitment to another- and in the law it is called “Marriage.”

Now the “random sex partners” reference.

I think the whole point here is that these are not random sex partners. These are two people who have decided to make a life long commitment to one another. Now they may not be any more successful at achieving that commitment than hetro couples, but that is not the point. I know of several gay couples who have been together for decades. Just as our civil system recognizes the difference between a married couple and two people that just happen to be dating at the moment, these long term gay couple are looking for the same recognition when it comes to civil matters. They are trying to draw a line between themselves and "random sex partners" as you refer to it.
You seem to think there is no difference. If your thinking is bible-rooted, perhaps there isn't any difference to you. And you are free to insist that no such union can occur in your church. That is the right of you and your church.

Civil law is different. What these judges (most of them appointed by republicans, by the way) recognize is that when it comes to matters of civil law, there is no standing to discriminate between gender in the rights allowed to committed couples. I don’t see how this is Judicial tyranny at all. Perhaps you define Judicial tyranny as a ruling that pisses you and a lot of people like you off.

Generously, they are giving the MA legislature time to work something out. Personally, I hope this comes to a legal standing for the concept of civil union. Its not that I care if they can consider them selves married or not. I just think that if by recognizing the concept of a civil union (or some other term) and documenting it much as we do with marriage licenses. Commited gay couples get all the rights afforded by law to heterosexual couples, Than I think the government has done its job. And we can let marraige be purely a non-secular term that refers to religious recognition of said commitment. What would be your problem with that? Oh that’s right:

“When choices are made that don’t accord with moral sense, we pay for that. We will pay likewise for the benefits given to gay "married" couples. It will affect us fiscally as well as further dividing and harming our culture.”

Of course “moral sense” is highly subjective. And the government has no business relying on any particular religious belief to define it for them. Yes this country is made up of mostly Christians. But it is also made up of mostly whites, fortunately we have set up a system so that non-whites (minorities) at least in theory have the same rights as the majority. “Rule of the majority with respect to the rights of the minority.” was how it was put in my civics class.

Plus, I have already asked how granting the rights accorded by marriage to gay couples would specifically harm your, my, or any other hetro-marriage or family produced from thereof And I am still waiting for an answer.

As for Nutcracker boy:
I think the defination of prejudice as a verb pretty much takes care of its use as a nown. It is pre-judging without adequate knowledge or the act of pre-judging without adequate knowledge. Either way, the specter of ignorance remains and it is something reasoned people should avoid.

[WOSG]

Lets take the last part first. That sister of mine who just celebrated her 31 year anniversary. No Kids. Never intended to have kids. Argue with that decision of you want, but should that nullify their marriage? The fruits of freedom and the results of freedom are 2 different things. The benefits of marriage to individuals and the reason for marriage as an institution worthy of Govt protection are 2 different things too. A good reason to have lower tax rates for married couples is to help those who are raising the next generation of taxpayers (like me, with 2 kids), other married taxpayers benefit as "free riders". There is nothing particular wrong with that unless we as a society allow some negative social trend occur as a consequence of this 'free rider' phenomenon. The examples I've given previously on this point have to do with divorce. Some people need to divorce, but we've made it easy enough that parents with kids divorce in large numbers in many cases where they perhaps need not, kids get hurt, and it shows up in crime and educational result statistics. Abuse is statistically most common from non-biological 'boyfriends' and least common from biological fathers, for example (something like a 33-to-1 ratio). Result? We *all* pay, in taxes/welfare-costs/crime/social-problems for the 'free choices' of others. It is folly to think this is not so. And it is so even if you cited anecdote after anecdote of people who really 'benefitted' from divorce.

I understand the motivation for the 'gay riders' to hop on board the marriage bandwagon and get the benefit of something that they wont really contribute to in a social sense. I feel their hopping on board will even degrade it (as now the possibility of harming children through the large-scale 'adoption' of kids in homosexual and lesbian couples gathers force.) But whether good or bad to allow this, it is wrong to pretend it is in any sense a 'reason' for marriage. Some have argued that Govt get out of the marriage business entirely and IMHO that is the right approach to take wrt homosexual couples. If such a couple wants to call themselves partners married whatever, find a church or write up a contract, whatever. that's their choice.

Or we can go the Louisiana route - make it a choice: the "serious marriage"; and the "floozy/easy marriage" (easy in, easy out).

Civil law is different. What these judges (most of them appointed by republicans, by the way) recognize is that when it comes to matters of civil law, there is no standing to discriminate between gender in the rights allowed to committed couples.

There is "no standing"? Where is that written? Where is the law that says that? And note this is not at all a discrimination against either gender.

I don’t see how this is Judicial tyranny at all.

Because you have fallen for the trap that because this is a result you dont mind, you think therefore no matter how the Judges invented the ruling to 'justify' it, it must be okay. WRONG!

Judicial tyranny are when Judges wilfully issue rulings that have no basis in law. This ruling has no basis in law. None! It was an invention on the bench. And the foolish idea that (liberal) Republicans are immune to Judicial tyranny shows how uninformed you are at how deep this Judicial rot goes. Even the Republicans on the supreme court (Souter for one, and OConnor and Kennedy at times) engage in it.

Judicial tyranny is specifically related to how liberal "Judicial activism" works. The Judges have replaced the laws of the legislature with their own interpretation of 'what is right', ignoring the text of the laws and the constitution. This is not the first time. Calling "under God" in the pledge unconstitutional is Judicial tyranny. So was the removal of the 10 commandments; the ruling defies the understanding of the 1st amendment and the plain meaning of it There is a Rehnquist dissent from the 1980s on a famous church v state ruling that makes PERFECTLY CLEAR to the whole court that no a single Jurist prior to 1970s would accept this absurd result. That is why they are removing 10 commandments in courts left and right, and yet the same kind of display sits in the Supreme Court building - as it has FOR NEARLY 200 YEARS.

Judicial tyranny is masked by the soft yet lying line about "a living Constitution". No, the rule of law is DEAD when you pretend it can mean what the Judge wants it to mean. Any Conservative has to belief in limited GOvernment. When it comes to the legisltaure, that means passing fewer laws, lower taxes, and less regulation. For the executive, it means not abusing the powers of investigation and working within the limits granted you. For the 3rd branch, it is best described by the term 'judicial restraint', which means using the powers of the judge to minimally intrude on the powers of the other branches, following the rule of law, and following a strict interpretation of laws and constitutions that considers the text and original intent Interpet the law, dont INVENT the law.

The Massachusetts Constitution is clear: Matters regarding the civil institution of marriage are subject to regulation by the Governor and the legislature. It's written in the Constitution itself. In this 4-3 ruling, 4 of the 7 justices wholly ignored the text of the Massachusetts constitution and threw in their own viewpoint on this matter. Where in the Mass. Constitution is it written that this extreme and false form of 'egalitarianism' must be in defiance of the will of the people and legislature and laws of the State of Massachusetts? Why not fight the particular out in law, in the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS?!?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE dont get fooled by the inane contention that this about 'letting gays live their life'. They've been doing it already, single or couples. You yourself say as much. Folks living their lives for years, doing what they do. Yet they dont get a tax writeoff and have the 'disadvantage' of not being considered as exactly suitable for adopting kids as a man-and-woman couple. Just ask yourself if you were a kid, would you want that for yourself.

Just as our civil system recognizes the difference between a married couple and two people that just happen to be dating at the moment, these long term gay couple are looking for the same recognition when it comes to civil matters. This is a perfect illustration of the fable of 'gay marriage' as equal. Just as "married" and "dating" are different, there IS a difference, isnt there, between homosexual unions and the traditional marriage between a man and a woman. And as I said previously on this thread, it's a nutty idea to insist 'gay marriage' and traditional marriage HAVE to be treated IDENTICALLY in law. It is like calling a bicycle a '4 wheeled motor vehicle' and having bicycle riders get driver's licenses. Why does it have to be exactly, totally the same?

And the government has no business relying on any particular religious belief to define it for them. Nobody is insisting belief defines anything, but ... Why would you discriminate against religious belief and forbid the wisdom derived from faith in informing public policy choices? This is not about enforcing any belief system, this is about letting the wisdom of the ages mean something in our country rather than wiping away traditionalism simply because cultural socialists want to build a 'brave new world'.

At a MINIMUM, let this issue be decided in the legislatures and not through the imperial dictatorship of the courts!

[WOSG]

oops first sentence, I meant to say:

The fruits of freedom and the *reasons for* freedom are 2 different things.

[WOSG]

"Generously, they are giving the MA legislature time to work something out."

BTW, another point regarding Judicial tyranny ... *anytime* the court *orders* the legislature to do anything it is a sure tipoff to Judicial over-reach. They are meddling where they ought not be meddling, and they cover their tracks by getting the legislature to do their bidding. This is not 'generous' it is "arrogant".

Do you like Government functionaries meddling in other people's business beyond the scope of their designated powers?

We saw extreme Judicial tyranny in Missouri when a Judge went hog-wild and ordered tax raises for a desegregation case (more money for school system means higher results). In the end, it was a disaster, as a Judge is wholly unfit to be a legislator nor a school board official.

[NMC EXP]

I just read Article I, Section 8 again and I do not see the power to regulate marriage among those enumerated.

Here is a radical idea for you: Convince state governments to stop licensing marriages entirely. The marriage license is a state sanction and makes marriage a privilege which can be defined and granted only by the state.

Get government out of it a make it a church matter. Atheists can visit a lawyer and write a contract.

Regards

J.R.

[BikerNYC]

Get government out of it a make it a church matter.

I like this idea. Does this mean that anyone can create a church to perform marriages so that those married will receive the tax breaks, like leaving your property to your spouse 100% estate tax free when you die? Or would all special rights and government deals for married people be eliminated?

[NMC EXP]

Or would all special rights and government deals for married people be eliminated?

If I were king the govt would have zero to do with marriage.

The couple would draw up a contract and wills to cover property disposition when one died.

Never happen of course. The govt will never surrender that kind of control.

Regards

J.R.

[NutCrackerBoy]

As for Nutcracker boy:
I think the defination of prejudice as a verb pretty much takes care of its use as a nown. It is pre-judging without adequate knowledge or the act of pre-judging without adequate knowledge. Either way, the specter of ignorance remains and it is something reasoned people should avoid.

I will take it as a newbie error that you failed to ping me while responding to my post.

No big loss, your response is a complete nothing. If you are interested in learning more about this insight on prejudice, may I suggest you read the works of Edmund Burke?

By the way, WOSG, are you aware that Typesbad signed up that very same day to engage you on the topic of "gay marriage" ?

[Always Right]

I just read Article I, Section 8 again and I do not see the power to regulate marriage among those enumerated.

A constitutional amendment would enumerate one. I think it is sad that it has come to this, but when we have courts that tell us that black is white, we must somehow inform them otherwise. This legislating from the bench is getting old. Maybe there is a better fix, but I don't see anyone seriously pushing anything that would put our courts in their place.

[WOSG]

"No big loss, your response is a complete nothing. If you are interested in learning more about this insight on prejudice, may I suggest you read the works of Edmund Burke?"

Advice to read Edmund Burke is useful always and everywhere. Got a book of his speeches I am going through.

"By the way, WOSG, are you aware that Typesbad signed up that very same day to engage you on the topic of "gay marriage" ?"

Cool ... "Fresh fish" for the debate.

[WOSG]

Here is a radical idea for you: Convince state governments to stop licensing marriages entirely. The marriage license is a state sanction and makes marriage a privilege which can be defined and granted only by the state.

How will you handle child custody cases? Can single parents adopt?

[NutCrackerBoy]

I just read Article I, Section 8 again and I do not see the power to regulate marriage among those enumerated.- NMC EXP

A constitutional amendment would enumerate one. I think it is sad that it has come to this, but when we have courts that tell us that black is white, we must somehow inform them otherwise. -Always Right

Regulating marriage is reserved for the states. A legitimate state power need not be enumerated in Article I, Section 8. Right, Always? (hee hee).

Yes, there is something wrong when we have to amend Constitutions to assert the definition of a concept that has been in effect for 3,000 years.

As I have said in other posts, one central issue is that we must categorically reject the notion of equal protection relating to gay unions. Gay unions are not equal in any sense to conventional marriage.

[Typesbad]

Our exchanges are getting rather long so despite the many things I want to respond to. I'll try to be a little briefer. You state:

A good reason to have lower tax rates for married couples is to help those who are raising the next generation of taxpayers (like me, with 2 kids), other married taxpayers benefit as "free riders".

A good reason perhaps, but clearly not the only reason. If it were all about children then the benefits would all be tied to the existence of children and you would have no "free-riders". The tax deductions per dependent we enjoy ( I have two children myself) are the most obvious example of such help.

But benefits pertaining to probate, healthcare, criminal court testimony, just to name a few, obviously have no direct benefits to children. Our governments obviously see a value in marriage outside of procreation. Could it possibly be that it (theoretically us) values commitment, stability, fidelity?

Or perhaps it is this. (And all of you proposing the interesting concept of the gov no longer recognizing marriage at all, listen in). Both criminal and civil law recognizes the difference between family and non-family in many ways. Blood family ties are obviously identified and so is the concept of adoption. For the government to not recognize marriage is to ask it to see no legal difference between a man's wife and just any woman he's known for a while. You would be related to your kids but not your spouse. Talk about anti-family!

I think we can all be grateful that our laws recognize that the commitment of marriage forms a family that a married couple is related to each other - even without the existence of children. It amazes me that so many people hate homosexuals so much that they are willing throw out the whole institution of legally recognized marriage, just to keep the homosexuals out of it.

That is what it really boils down to here isn’t? You people don’t like fags and you don’t want then to get nuthin. And you don’t like “fags” because…it makes you uncomfortable? Cause your religion says its bad? I couldn’t help but notice WOSG that your two examples of Judicial tyranny both involved perceived slights against Christianity. Displaying the commandments in court! Only the most myopic Christian-centric thinkers can’t see how obviously that flies in the face of separation of church and sate and equal justice under the law. How fairly would you feel your trial was if you lost your case to an Islamite by a judge that had quotes from the Koran in his courthouse?

Tell you what, you keep the “fags” out of your religion, but keep your religion out of our civil policy OK?

[WOSG]

"I couldn’t help but notice WOSG that your two examples of Judicial tyranny both involved perceived slights against Christianity. "

Since they are egged on by the ACLU and the ACLU hates Christianity and is militantly secularist, this is not surprising.The ACLU has successfully gotten a false and radical interpretation of the establishment clause (no way in heck does a nativity scene nor a single 10 commandments tablet constitute an 'establishment of religion' - they have forbidden the voluntary public expression of religion). The ACLU, founded by Communists, have throughout its history attempted to undermine a variety of traditional institutions including America's traditions of faith.

Even an even-handed atheist should be appalled at this abuse of our Constitution and laws, destroying freedom of religious expression harms free expression generally.

However, here is a catalog of other recent Judicial tyrannies:
- Forbidding the deportation of illegal immigrant felons, contrary to Federal laws on the matter;
- Attempting to stop a Constitutional election ie, the California recall election (ACLU behind that), an egregious attack on democracy akin to Venezuala's courts
- Throwing out a bill that protect preborn humans from being killed at the moment of delivery, aka, partial birth abortion ban. In general, the whole stream of 'substantive due process' decisions are based on nothing more than Judicial legislation, "whole cloth" construction of 'rights' without basis in Constitution and that were not at all in the text nor the intent of the 14th amendment.
- The attempt to force VMI to admit women. This was bad law on many levels. Do you think it a bit odd unisex schools are required only at military academies but not at eg Smith College, or Wellesley, etc. where Hillary attended? Is it even odder that a constitutional *amendment* was required to give women the vote and yet now miraculously the 14th amendment suffices to destroy any distinction in law wrt schooling?
- I'd add perhaps the overtly activist court in Florida that is "dying" (pun intended) to pull the plug on Terri Shiavo even *after* the Legislature of Florida has spoken to save her - but the jury is still out there. It would be egregious indeed for the judge to invoke some 'right to be killed by your guardian' as an ephemeral right above the right of parents and others to protect that life.

"Both criminal and civil law recognizes the difference between family and non-family in many ways."

Right.

Lastly, it is a complete and utter ad homimen to say the reason for defending traditional view of marriage is "hate" for homosexuals. Sorry, that is a tired old trick. Wrong.

I and many others would be quite happy to leave homosexuals alone if they left the rest of us alone as well, not intruding nor demanding the laws conform for their convenience. And I'd even surmise that some gays would agree with an appropriate distinction being made between man-woman marriage and other forms of 'partnership'. (One such gay called Mike Gallagher show yesterday; go figure).

"Tell you what, you keep the “fags” out of your religion, but keep your religion out of our civil policy OK? "

This is a non-sequitor. Why must religious views be forbidden from consideration? Why do you put Christianity in a worse position than Communism with respect to its influence on our policies? It is aribrary and makes no sense.

"Only the most myopic Christian-centric thinkers can’t see how obviously that flies in the face of separation of church and sate and equal justice under the law."

Please show me what provision in the Constitution is violated. Please

" How fairly would you feel your trial was if you lost your case to an Islamite by a judge that had quotes from the Koran in his courthouse? "

Uh huh. I guess nobody told you that Mohammed pictorial is in the Supreme Court building. Koran quotes have been in court-rooms.... WAKE UP!

[Typesbad]

Everytime I read one of your posts, I don't know where to start. OK, how about here:

"The ACLU hates Christianity"

Nonsense. And clearly a sign of your frame of reference in this argument.
Take a look. The vast majority of ACLU members are of a Christian denomination. But certain Christian movements repeatedly support efforts that force others to live according to what in your words are “America's traditions of faith” which often, at least, arguably intrudes on the civil rights of another group; and like most non-religeous civil rights cases, the ACLU is always the first to act. And that continually puts them in an adversarial position against some (and usually very vocal) Christian organization.

What you probably will never accept is that there no true “American Traditions of Faith”. We are a pluralist society. There are countless “faiths” here. Some are followed by more than others. Some have been here longer than others. But all are supposed to enjoy equal protection under the law.

There are caveats of course. And most have to do with the idea of not infringing upon the rights of others. But “infringed upon” usually does not include “being uncomfortable with” which always seems to be lurking somewhere around gay issues.

“The ACLU, founded by Communists”
I can’t believe you would resort to something as hoary as red-baiting. Founded by communists? Hell, for all I know they were (though I’m inclined to doubt your sources on the subject). God knows if anyone had civil rights issues in this country it was the communists. But that is clearly irrelevant because however they were founded, the institution fights for civil rights, not communism. And the two are hardly related.

So your “founded” claim is just silly, regardless of accuracy. I’m Presbyterian, but don’t ask me to defend the life or views of John Knox. The editors of Consumer Reports were long accused of being communists, but it is the first place I’ll look to buy a new refrigerator.

Frankly, I don’t agree with everything the ACLU has fought for, but they are more idealistic than I am. I have to admire their focus though. Everything they do involves a civil liberty issue. Communism is not part of the plan.

I’m not going to spend time taking on each of your examples of judicial tyrannies. The counter arguments to each are obvious to any objective individual. These seem more to be a listing of issues you passionately disagree with than examples of judicial overreaching.

Speaking of which, I hate to say it, but the most glaring example of judicial overreach in recent years was “Bush vs. Gore”. However one may be pleased with the outcome, their logic was completely absurd. Constitutional law experts on all sides of the political spectrum are ripping that decision to shreds.

“I and many others would be quite happy to leave homosexuals alone if they left the rest of us alone as well, not intruding nor demanding the laws conform for their convenience.”

So if one member of a long-term gay couple is in the hospital and the other doesn’t have any of the rights in dealing with their care that a spouse would, too bad, right? In fact some decades long estranged sister could march in and start calling the shots leaving the partner helpless. But they shouldn't say anything because that would be bugging the rest of us with their gayness.

So if another long term gay couple can’t be assured that their estate will go to each other in the event of one passing as could a married couple, they should just lump it, right? Because that trying to change things would be demanding that the laws treat them fairly – “for their convenience”.

If they can’t rent an apartment, get a joint-loan, be signed onto the other’s insurance plan, or just hold hands in public, that’s just tough. Because to speak up about it wouldn’t be leaving us alone, or worse, be asking for “special privileges”. Those special privileges every married couple enjoys.

WOSG, if you want them to leave you alone, give them all the rights we heterosexuals enjoy and they will never have any reason to bug you again. If you truly have no complaints with gay people, this should be no problem for you.

I’m left handed - a minority if there ever was one – and one that used to be considered a sign of the devil. But left handers haven’t been bugging you much lately have they? We haven’t been insisting on our “rights” (so to speak) have we? Because no one is infringing on our rights! We are not being treated unfairly in any meaningful way. But if we were, I assure you us “lefties” (no pun intended) would be suing up a storm and demanding our rights (there’s that word again) and I would welcome the ACLU’s legal expertise in a flash.

“Oh, but that is different!” you say. “It is ok to treat gays differently because…”

(sorry, I shouldn’t be putting words in your mouth. Go ahead and finish the sentence, but don’t use anything that references back to any particular religious doctrine because our Government isn’t supposed to either.)

And finally, I am indeed quite awake now, and fully aware that the Supreme Court has elements from different cultures religions and philosophies evident in their facility. In fact, they made a specific effort to be inclusive and to show that they hear and respect words of wisdom from a variety of sources and do not judge strictly by any one set of them. If there is one thing I think you and I will both agree upon is that wasn’t the point of Judge Roy Moore’s “display”. And if you’re not sure, just ask him.

[Typesbad]

Look WOSG, I was going back to some earlier posts and ran across your 272 post. Now I dissagree with a whole lot of it as you may expect by now, but I have to respect your depth of thought in this area.

My primary impression is that you have a particularly traditional moral outlook. And from that perspective and the more something or someone strays from that foundation of beliefs, they more wrong they are. and the more harm they cause to society as a whole. As opposed to just being different.

And that is fair enough from a personal perspective. But my argument is that by and large it is the Gov's job to view both objectively and morally equivelent. Now this leads to some pretty distasteful stuff frommany of our poinst of view. But that is freedom for you. The limitations of such objectivism need to rest almost exclusively on the harm or direct rights infringement to others.

But clearly you are a thougtful person - more so than some parts of my posts asserted.

So let me ask you and others here one question.

If "marriage" was to be defined as a union between man and woman, but all rights and privileges of marraige under civil law were granted to gay couples who commited them selves in a "Civil Union" or some similar term.
(Stopping short of family issues were children are concerned, because that is a whole other can of worms - I realise that that would inevitably be the next battle, but lets deal with each separately on their own merits)

Could you be in favor of it?

[WOSG]

"My primary impression is that you have a particularly traditional moral outlook. "

Ah, but throughout this thread I have stated nothing nor expressed anything that would force such a conclusion. Read carefully.

"And that is fair enough from a personal perspective. But my argument is that by and large it is the Gov's job to view both objectively and morally equivelent. "

Since when is MORAL EGALITARIANISM government's job? On the contrary, the last thing you want is a Government that acts to level mores. Rather we should want Government to *support* moral standards.

"If "marriage" was to be defined as a union between man and woman, but all rights and privileges of marraige under civil law were granted to gay couples who commited them selves in a "Civil Union" or some similar term.
(Stopping short of family issues were children are concerned, because that is a whole other can of worms - I realise that that would inevitably be the next battle, but lets deal with each separately on their own merits) Could you be in favor of it?"

You missed the key element: Is this a 'solution' enforced by imperial Judges or enacted by the people?
I have already stated I would have 1/10th the problem if the law is actually done by the legislatures. I believe the ONLY solution that is appropriate is for different states - through their legislatures - to take their own approach on this concept of gay 'unions' piecemeal and to leave marriage itself alone.

Could you favor *that*?

Your 'vermont' solution is one approach, another is simply this: Keep things as they were. A compromise would be something in between. Such details are less an issue for me than whether the people can get control of their culture back from an unelected robed elite.

[NutCrackerBoy]

So let me ask you and others here one question. If "marriage" was to be defined as a union between man and woman, but all rights and privileges of marraige under civil law were granted to gay couples who commited them selves in a "Civil Union" or some similar term. Could you be in favor of it?

WOSG has already said: not if such policy is demanded by judicial fiat. For me, that is not only because of the rule by the unelected rather than law created by elected representatives on behalf of the people. It is also because of the mischiefs which come from misapplying the principle of equal protection.

So, moving on. What if it is a law being proposed? Since your "civil union" is exactly marriage by a different name, a difference of no significance, a mere political correctness, then your question becomes: Could I support a gay marriage law?

The answer is no.

[WOSG]

Everytime I read one of your posts, I don't know where to start. OK, how about here: "The ACLU hates Christianity" Nonsense. And clearly a sign of your frame of reference in this argument. Take a look. The vast majority of ACLU members are of a Christian denomination. "

Boy, are you naive!! My frame of reference is to see their actions and draw obvious conclusions.The ACLU has been one of the most destructive and evil organizations in America. I can cite many cases where the ACLU has refused to assist in Christians whose rights are attacked while engaging in lawsuits that were designed to rob the religious of their rights of free expression. At the same time, the ACLU 'defends free expression' by pushing any non-Christian An example is how the ACLU sued to FORBID the saying of Christian prayers, yet sued to PERMIT the saying of Wiccan prayers in same situations - hmmm. hypocrisy? I'd like to defend our real constitution and freedoms from their depredations.

The ACLU has defended NAMBLA and child pornography. They have tried to take "In God we trust" off of coins, and "under God" out of the pledge. They have tried to eliminate Christian chaplains in the military. They have fought against tax-exempt status for churches. They have defended public sex businesses and obscene material as protected under the 1st amendment ('free expression' you know), but have sued to forbid students from voluntary free expressions of religion at graduation ceremonies and before mealtimes. The ACLU has gone the extra mile to degrade, distort and destroy the First Amendment as an open door for obscenity, while attacking real first amendment freedoms (such as attacks on political speech such as done in Campaign finance "reform" laws).

Some food for thought on the ACLU: http://www.geocities.com/graymada/aclu.html

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/lang091003.shtml

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1777/aclu.htm http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_mays.html

For it’s first 60 years 80% of ACLU Board and Committee Members had Communist affiliations, and 90% of its cases were involved in defending Communists.

Btw, where is your evidence for the religious affiliation and faith of members?

But certain Christian movements repeatedly support efforts that force others to live according to what in your words are “America's traditions of faith” which often, at least, arguably intrudes on the civil rights of another group; In absoluately NONE of the cases I cited has anyone been forced to believe in anything. As for being 'forced to live' ... egads, I have to live according to moral dictates of the puritans who smother us with sex harrassment laws and political correctness, I am forced to live with seatbelt laws and drug laws and laws require, I cant cut my trees down without permission from the city. I am forced at gunpoint to pay for the killing of unborn humans in my town. I find it bizarre in the extreme that civil rights to do as I please in my bedroom are violated by a host of laws that says I cant choose to freely associate when I rent out my bedroom; the power of govt to condemn property, take it to protect an endangered bird or build a stadium. Not to mention govt regulations of parents. and against this, all of which could be considered a 'civil right' as much or more so than acts of sodomy, you claim the religious will take away someone's "civil rights"?!? Isnt that more than a tad selective?

and like most non-religeous civil rights cases, the ACLU is always the first to act. And that continually puts them in an adversarial position against some (and usually very vocal) Christian organization. Again you show your naivety about this organization ...

What you probably will never accept is that there no true “American Traditions of Faith”. We are a pluralist society. There are countless “faiths” here. This is very poor logic and history. The faiths are certainly countable, and that there are many faiths doesnt take away from the realiy that the majority of our founding fathers were Protestant anglo-saxon Christians. They derived their faith and culture from the mother ship England.

Even as a Catholic, I can recognize the protestant element in this heritage of our country. Likewise, any non-Christian must see that our faith tradition has been largely Christian. It's all I was trying to say.

Some are followed by more than others. Some have been here longer than others. But all are supposed to enjoy equal protection under the law. I never suggested otherwise; on the other hand, you have - by denying Christians equal access to the political sphere (you dont see it that way, but it's true if you think through it logically). I never supposed that some belief systems have preferred access to the public sphere. But you are the one who wants to put the Christian faith in an inferior position to the Communist belief system, simply because you falsely think faith cannot inform our moral judgements about public policies. this is an incorrect reading of church and state separation.

It's easily explained by considering an analogy: A religious group that says "thou shalt not bear false witness" tries to make sure we enforce perjury laws. To turn that around and say "No, we are not ALLOWED to have that law, because to allow it would enforce a religious view". That of course is ABSURD, as the Christian religion has a pure expression of good morality and so ANY DECENT LEGAL SYSTEM WILL APPROXIMATE CHRISTIAN MORES. Even the legal system in Israel or India. (In fact, they do. And note: Neither have gay marriages. hmmmm, are we enforcing Hindu morality by opposing gay marriages? )

I dont think Communist (im)moral belief systems should have such a preference.

There are caveats of course. And most have to do with the idea of not infringing upon the rights of others. But “infringed upon” usually does not include “being uncomfortable with” which always seems to be lurking somewhere around gay issues.

You seem to be the one with comfort issues - you are uncomfortable letting the PEOPLE decide this rather than having it decided by Judicial tyrants egged on by extremist special interests. I am more comfortable letting the people decide.

“The ACLU, founded by Communists” I can’t believe you would resort to something as hoary as red-baiting. Founded by communists? Hell, for all I know they were (though I’m inclined to doubt your sources on the subject). You didnt know this basic historical fact?!? I cant believ e you stooped to the hoary old claim of "red-baiter" when faced with historical evidence. "Anarchist Roger Baldwin founded the ACLU in 1919, after his release from prison where he served a sentence for draft evasion, at a party attended by Socialist Party notable Norman Thomas, future Communist Party chairman Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Soviet agent Agnes Smedley." Source: Chuck Morse, lots more. This is well-known.

God knows if anyone had civil rights issues in this country it was the communists. But that is clearly irrelevant because however they were founded, the institution fights for civil rights, not communism. You are Wrong. They were founded as a front group to assist the Communist party advance its interests and the interests of fellow-travelling socialist radicals.

And the two are hardly related. Wrong again. The ACLU was a cover organization designed to assist and product the Communist party without being tied to closely with it since they wanted other allies. Their main goal was to promote "civil rights" as a way to enable Communists and Communist ideals to more easily insinuate itself into institutions of American life.

http://www.chuckmorse.com/communistbackground_aclu.html

Frankly, I don’t agree with everything the ACLU has fought for, but they are more idealistic than I am. It is not "idealistic" to harm the education system by insisting that wew cant have educational choice but we must all submit to a monopoly secularist education system. Yet that is what the ACLU sued for.

I have to admire their focus though. Everything they do involves a civil liberty issue. Communism is not part of the plan. All this tells us is that you bought their cover story hook, line, sinker. Birds of a feather still flock together, though, and CPUSA is happy to link to the ACLU from their homepage. "For it’s first 60 years 80% of ACLU Board and Committee Members had Communist affiliations, and 90% of its cases were involved in defending Communists."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_mays.html

(sorry, I shouldn’t be putting words in your mouth. Go ahead and finish the sentence, but don’t use anything that references back to any particular religious doctrine because our Government isn’t supposed to either.) You still havent explained or justified this particular belief that discriminates against the religious. Why are only irreligious belief systems valid reasons for laws? Why this DOUBLE-STANDARD?

[WOSG]

here's an example where the ACLU went out of its way to oppose religious expression and support:

In 1999, Joshua Davey, a student at Northwest College in Kirkland, Washington was awarded a $1,125 Promise Scholarship. The Promise Scholarship provides financial assistance to students primarily from low income families who exhibited high academic credentials and are enrolled in an accredited public or private post-secondary school within the state of Washington.

Davey first received a letter from the Governor stating that he had been granted the scholarship. But when Davey declared his majors (Pastoral Ministries and Business Management), the state withdrew the scholarship, citing a policy that said: "students who are pursuing a degree in theology are not eligible to receive any state-funded financial aid, including the new Washington Promise Scholarship."

A federal district court ruled against Davey in October 2000. The ACLJ appealed to the Ninth Circuit and won. Now the Supreme Court has taken up the case