The California Proposition 8 Case: Olson and Boies

[micatala]

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02262010/profile.html


Bill Moyers interviewed Theodore Olson and David Boies, the chief lawyers handling the suit against California's Proposition 8, this past Friday on PBS. Prop 8 was the ballot initiative banning gay marriage in CA that narrowly passed in the fall of 2008.

Olson is a prominent conservative, famous for handling the Republican case in Bush V. Gore.

Boies is on the opposite side of the political spectrum, and was on the opposite side of the Bush v. Gore case.

They are teaming up to represent one male and one female same-sex couples, a case that is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.

I would certainly recommend the full interview if you have time.


One main point of their legal strategy is to hammer home that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is a fundamental individual right, and that extending this right to gays is not creating a new right, but simply treating gays equally with respect to an already firmly established right.

Conservatives, just like liberals, rely on the Supreme Court to protect the rule of law, to protect our liberties, to look at a law and decide whether or not it fits within the Constitution. And I think the point that's really important here, when you're thinking about judicial activism, is that this is not a new right. Nobody is saying, 'Go find in the Constitution the right to get married.' Everybody, unanimous Supreme Court, says there's a right to get married, a fundamental right to get married. The question is whether you can discriminate against certain people based on their sexual orientation. And the issue of prohibiting discrimination has never in my view been looked as a test of judicial activism. That's not liberal, that's not conservative. That's not Republican or Democrat. That's simply an American Constitutional civil right.

They noted that the Supreme Court has said that even prison inmates cannot be prevented from being married.


In the interview, they went on to pretty well demolish any legal justification for Proposition 8. Of course, they still have to win their case, and eventually in front of the SCOTUS.


Questions for debate:

1) Are Olson and Boies correct. Should the suit go forward regardless of the risk of losing?

2) How good is their case?

3) Are the likely to win?




The suit itself is entitled Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, even though neither the governor nor his attorney general are going to defend the proposition. The AG even noted he felt Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

See http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/ou ... rzenegger/
for more background.


See http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... act_talbot
for a New Yorker article on the suit.

[McCulloch]

Fine, changing that is up to the people, who have consistently agreed with me.

So far. Will you be OK with the change once the majority of the people are on side?

[East of Eden]

"By your reasoning over half the country are bigots, including Obama."



First mention of Obama and bigotry in the same sentence in this conversation. It came from you.

You: "Hey, YOU brought up Obama and his "bigotry," not me."

I never called Obama a bigot. Note the part I did say, "By your reasoining...."

Obama and I both believe marriage to be between a man and woman. Doesn't that make him a bigot?

Going to keep dodging this question?

I gave my reasons for objecting to the articles you've posted and linked to. So have the other scientists who analyzed it and rejected it, as I also noted, not to mention those whose work your beloved liar, Cameron, has footnoted, but who formally protested his misuse and abuse of their work and denounced his conclusions as unjustified and meaningless.

Who's lying NOW?

I'll believe Paul Cameron before you. His 'crime' has been to tick off the PC thought police.

What does the crime of rape have to do with marriage? How about the Mormons or Muslims who may want multiple wives? Is that OK or are you a bigot and a hater?

Another question you keep dodging.

Okay, then explain to me how it's NOT hypocritical to claim that all these "problems" that you claim are your reasons for opposing gay marriage DO NOT APPLY to STRAIGHT people.

Been answered.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but THAT WAS A TOTAL NON SEQUITUR. It was not responsive to my point to the tiniest degree.

Because you don't understand it doesn't make it a non-sequiter.

That's obvious to everyone, of course, but I thought I'd underline it.

You doesn't = everyone.

Feel free to dodge the question again. It's getting quite amusing to watch how you change the subject and dance around it without EVER so much as approaching the point.

Suit youself, I'm amused watching you have another fit.

Not that that matters anyway. Like I said, it doesn't matter if 100% of the voters support an unjust

Your opinion.

and unconstitutional law.

If it's unconstitutional why is it in force?

Where's YOUR concern for the children?!?

Yes, children have a lot to do with marriage, and the state's interest in it.

All those problems you're so worried about apparently don't bother you unless the parents are gay. They aren't serious enough to ban either marriage or childrearing, unless the parents are gay.

We're talking about gay marriage.

WHICH PROVES, ONCE AGAIN, THAT YOUR CONCERN IS NOT FOR THE CHILDREN, BUT ONLY HOMOSEXUALITY.

Why don't YOU stop lying? You value advancing the anti-gay agenda over EVERYTHING, including the welfare of children, human rights, justice, and telling the truth.

You're just NEVER going to address the obvious hypocrisy in your statements here, are you?

Another rant not worth responding to.

"I disagree. Liberal CA does not have enough "fundamentalists" to make up 52% of the population. 52% of the population there DOES have common sense."

Dealt with multiple times. Nothing here.

Typical response when you get a respone you don't like, at which point you accuse my of not answering.

"Does that include liberal Christians who worked to oppose Prop. 8? I've been waiting a while for than answer. "

If you're going to throw around "lying," this will do as an example of yours. That's been dealt with multiple times, and at length, and you absolutely know it.

If it has, indulge me and answer it again, I've certainly done the same for you.

Do you think that freedom of religion guarantees that your religiously motivated vote will PREVAILl?

Yes, the same as what happened with ML King's religiously motivated vote.

Does it guarantee YOUR right to dictate the beliefs and practices of others, and grants NO freedom of religion for anyone else?

Yes, all laws are an imposition of somebody's morality.

Nothing else here that requires a response.

At last we agree.

ALL of these objections have already been dealt with, repeatedly; and once again, you pretend that they haven't and ignore the factual arguments concerned. You have deleted and declined to answer key points, MOST NOTABLY THE ONE BELOW; tried to mount arguments that have already been refuted; and, of course, "missed the point" and dodged questions.

Most significantly, we still have this on the table, with apparently no hope of a response from you; you've dodged it several times now, and I doubt very much if you're ever going to address it. It blows your arguments totally out of the water,

Wrong.

and you know that,

Wrong.

but you won't even acknowledge the point:

What point?

"All your objections only apply if the couple is GAY, and you're not fooling anyone about that. A straight couple, or as noted below, even same-sex caregivers that are NOT gay, with PRECISELY the same problems and risks that you pretend to be so worried about, should still be legally able to marry or raise children, according to you. Their possible problems should only result in the outlawing of their marriages or right to raise children if the couple is GAY.

How about this? The lack of a mother and father in a child-raising situtation is far from ideal. It may happen after divorce, etc., but should not be held up as the equal of a mother/father household.

[East of Eden]

Fine, changing that is up to the people, who have consistently agreed with me.

So far. Will you be OK with the change once the majority of the people are on side?

Absolutely, even though I would think it very unwise.

[cnorman18]

"By your reasoning over half the country are bigots, including Obama."

First mention of Obama and bigotry in the same sentence in this conversation. It came from you.

You: "Hey, YOU brought up Obama and his "bigotry," not me."

I never called Obama a bigot.

Neither did I.

Note the part I did say, "By your reasoining...."

Precisely. YOU alleged that I was calling Obama a bigot, when I never did; I also explained, AFTER you first asked this, why YOU are a bigot and Obama isn't, but you ignored those points, as usual. See below.

Obama and I both believe marriage to be between a man and woman. Doesn't that make him a bigot?

Going to keep dodging this question?

Did Obama promote vicious and false gay stereotypes? THAT'S what makes you a bigot, as I've already explained, and as you pretend not to have noticed.

I gave my reasons for objecting to the articles you've posted and linked to. So have the other scientists who analyzed it and rejected it, as I also noted, not to mention those whose work your beloved liar, Cameron, has footnoted, but who formally protested his misuse and abuse of their work and denounced his conclusions as unjustified and meaningless.

Who's lying NOW?

I'll believe Paul Cameron before you. His 'crime' has been to tick off the PC thought police.

Is that supposed to be a reasoned response? You haven't dealt with a single objection to Cameron's work that's been posted here; not one. You've just dismissed them without any response or defense of any kind, except "I agree with him, so he must be right."

Okay, then explain to me how it's NOT hypocritical to claim that all these "problems" that you claim are your reasons for opposing gay marriage DO NOT APPLY to STRAIGHT people.

Been answered.

Where? What was your answer? No one here has seen it, and neither have I.

Prove me a liar. Quote where you answered that question. I can't wait.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but THAT WAS A TOTAL NON SEQUITUR. It was not responsive to my point to the tiniest degree.

Because you don't understand it doesn't make it a non-sequiter.

That's true; what makes it a non sequitur is that it had nothing whatever to do with the point it followed and to which it was supposedly intended to be a response. Anyone who cares to can verify that for themselves.

All those problems you're so worried about apparently don't bother you unless the parents are gay. They aren't serious enough to ban either marriage or childrearing, unless the parents are gay.

We're talking about gay marriage.

Yes, but you're claiming that those are your reasons for opposing it, and they patently aren't. If they don't apply to straight parents too, then they're not your real reasons. That's called "hypocrisy." QED.

WHICH PROVES, ONCE AGAIN, THAT YOUR CONCERN IS NOT FOR THE CHILDREN, BUT ONLY HOMOSEXUALITY.

Why don't YOU stop lying? You value advancing the anti-gay agenda over EVERYTHING, including the welfare of children, human rights, justice, and telling the truth.

You're just NEVER going to address the obvious hypocrisy in your statements here, are you?

Another rant not worth responding to.

Translation: "I've got to find another way to avoid answering that without looking like I am."

"I disagree. Liberal CA does not have enough "fundamentalists" to make up 52% of the population. 52% of the population there DOES have common sense."

Dealt with multiple times. Nothing here.

Typical response when you get a respone you don't like, at which point you accuse my of not answering.

People here can read. I'll let them judge.

"Does that include liberal Christians who worked to oppose Prop. 8? I've been waiting a while for than answer. "

If you're going to throw around "lying," this will do as an example of yours. That's been dealt with multiple times, and at length, and you absolutely know it.

If it has, indulge me and answer it again, I've certainly done the same for you.

I'll do it, just to demonstrate something about your veracity here:

(1) There's nothing wrong with supporting ANY idea, for ANY reason; there's nothing constitutionally wrong with fundamentalists opposing gay marriage, and there's nothing constitutionally wrong with liberal Christians supporting it. I've posted this on this thread before, at least three times.

(2) The problem of constitutionality only arises when a bill becomes a law; further, it can only be declared unconstitutional and revoked if there is a court challenge to it, which is the case we're discussing on this thread. I've posted that before too.

(3) NOT prohibiting something infringes the rights of no one. Three or four times, at least.

(4) Therefore, a law which does NOT prohibit anything is constitutional whether it's based on religious ideas or not. Again, multiple posts.

(5) Therefore, when discussing the repeal of laws against gay marriage, there is no First Amendment religious-freedom concern; no one's rights are violated by NOT outlawing gay marriage. Those who don't believe in it aren't required to do it. Posted any multiple times.

The above is absolutely an answer to your twisted question, and it's all been posted more than once. Are you going to keep pretending you haven't seen these NOW?

Do you think that freedom of religion guarantees that your religiously motivated vote will PREVAILl?

Yes, the same as what happened with ML King's religiously motivated vote.

Does it guarantee YOUR right to dictate the beliefs and practices of others, and grants NO freedom of religion for anyone else?

Yes, all laws are an imposition of somebody's morality.

So, right out front, you think that "religious freedom" means the freedom to dictate the beliefs and practices of EVERYONE - but only for Christians. NO ONE ELSE IS TO HAVE ANY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AT ALL, but must kowtow to Christianity and live by its precepts.

That's the clear meaning of what you just posted. Do you want to stand by it?

ALL of these objections have already been dealt with, repeatedly; and once again, you pretend that they haven't, and ignore the factual arguments concerned. You have deleted and declined to answer key points, MOST NOTABLY THE ONE BELOW; tried to mount arguments that have already been refuted; and, of course, "missed the point" and dodged questions.

Most significantly, we still have this on the table, with apparently no hope of a response from you; you've dodged it several times now, and I doubt very much if you're ever going to address it. It blows your arguments totally out of the water,

Wrong.

and you know that,

Wrong.

but you won't even acknowledge the point:

What point?

If you don't know what the point is, how can you claim to know that it's "wrong"?

Oops.

"All your objections only apply if the couple is GAY, and you're not fooling anyone about that. A straight couple, or as noted below, even same-sex caregivers that are NOT gay, with PRECISELY the same problems and risks that you pretend to be so worried about, should still be legally able to marry or raise children, according to you. Their possible problems should only result in the outlawing of their marriages or right to raise children if the couple is GAY.

How about this? The lack of a mother and father in a child-raising situtation is far from ideal. It may happen after divorce, etc., but should not be held up as the equal of a mother/father household.

That's reasonable enough; but the question you won't answer remains:

Why shouldn't those situations be illegal too, then, if the quality of parenting is really your concern?

The fact that you don't advocate this is absolute proof that, as a reason to oppose gay marriage, all your concern about "the children" is mere tactical camouflage. You don't care about single parenting or nonconventional parenting, at least not enough to want to see them banned - unless the parents are GAY. THAT, therefore, is your actual focus, not the welfare of the children. Therefore your stated reasons are false, and you continue to conceal your actual reasons - which I think we can all guess.

Bottom line: Since you won't explain why your position is NOT disingenuous and hypocritical, that's the only conclusion a reasonable person can reach about it.

Do you have an answer, at long last? Or are you going to find a NEW way to dodge this key question?

[East of Eden]

Did Obama promote vicious and false gay stereotypes? THAT'S what makes you a bigot, as I've already explained,

You mean as you've already lied about.

Is that supposed to be a reasoned response? You haven't dealt with a single objection to Cameron's work that's been posted here; not one. You've just dismissed them without any response or defense of any kind, except "I agree with him, so he must be right."

I haven't analyzed Cameron's work and neither have you, but I have no doubt most of the hostility to him comes from having a differing opinion on the wholesomness of the gay lifestyle. Those who question global warming get the same treatment. It's the Saul Alinsky MO used by the left of isolate and attack. Anyway, this thread is not about Paul Cameron, I suspect what you object to is the article I posted on the health risks of gay sex by Dr. John Diggs, which had 129 footnotes. Amazing how you just dismiss that out of hand because it goes against your PC thought.

Where? What was your answer? No one here has seen it, and neither have I.

Prove me a liar. Quote where you answered that question. I can't wait.

No problem. Heterosexual couples provide a mother and father, gay couples never do. The rare heterosexual couples of the same sex you bring up (I've never heard of it in real life) are not an optimal situation.

That's true; what makes it a non sequitur is that it had nothing whatever to do with the point it followed and to which it was supposedly intended to be a response.

Your opinion again.

(1) There's nothing wrong with supporting ANY idea, for ANY reason; there's nothing constitutionally wrong with fundamentalists opposing gay marriage, and there's nothing constitutionally wrong with liberal Christians supporting it. I've posted this on this thread before, at least three times.

(2) The problem of constitutionality only arises when a bill becomes a law; further, it can only be declared unconstitutional and revoked if there is a court challenge to it, which is the case we're discussing on this thread. I've posted that before too.

(3) NOT prohibiting something infringes the rights of no one. Three or four times, at least.

(4) Therefore, a law which does NOT prohibit anything is constitutional whether it's based on religious ideas or not. Again, multiple posts.

(5) Therefore, when discussing the repeal of laws against gay marriage, there is no First Amendment religious-freedom concern; no one's rights are violated by NOT outlawing gay marriage. Those who don't believe in it aren't required to do it. Posted any multiple times.

As the SCOTUS hasn't decided whether or not Prop. 8 is a violation of anyone's rights, the above is your opinion. It is interesting watching the mental contortions whereby you declare liberal Christian attempts to influence policy to be 'OK', and conservative Christian attempts at the same to be 'bad'. That is where your hypocracy comes in.

So, right out front, you think that "religious freedom" means the freedom to dictate the beliefs and practices of EVERYONE - but only for Christians. NO ONE ELSE IS TO HAVE ANY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AT ALL, but must kowtow to Christianity and live by its precepts.

That's the clear meaning of what you just posted.

No it isn't, it's a twisted caricature. I believe in the free excercise of religion, whether those religious beliefs lead a Christian (or other religion person) to oppose the Iraqi war, abortion, slavery, the death penalty, gay marriage, or whatever. Once again, the reason for someone else's vote is none of your business.

We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

You seem to have a real problem when the democratic process doesn't go your way. Just as you don't understand my position, I don't understand Obama's support in the last election. However, I don't question his supporter's motives and call them names. I assume them to be people who love our country and want the best for it, although I consider them misguided. Whether I like it or not, Obama is POTUS for the next few year, and I wish him the best but will point out, hopefully respectfully, where I think him wrong.

It's funny Christians get the rap for being smug, intolerant, judgemental, quick to condemn, etc., when actually the group doing the most of those things is the secular left, as you have demonstrated on this thread.

[otseng]

Moderator comment:

Just a general note to please avoid making any type of personal comments (lying, bigot). You are free to address the issues as forcefully as you want, but making personal judgments against another would be forbidden.

[cnorman18]

Nothing new here. Debate's over, but I'll make a few observations.

Did Obama promote vicious and false gay stereotypes? THAT'S what makes you a bigot, as I've already explained,

You mean as you've already lied about.

Third time you've called me a liar. I'm not, and since you can't show that I am, what does that make you?

Don't accuse me of "having a fit" and personally insulting you if you're going to do the same.... and, of course, I have to note that you avoided answering the question in favor of just tossing an insult.

So I'll ask it again: Has Obama tossed around vicious and false gay stereotypes, as you have? I'll withdraw the term "bigot," but I'll stand by that; it's a fact.

Is that supposed to be a reasoned response? You haven't dealt with a single objection to Cameron's work that's been posted here; not one. You've just dismissed them without any response or defense of any kind, except "I agree with him, so he must be right."

I haven't analyzed Cameron's work and neither have you...

The criticisms of his work speak for themselves; they are accurate and cogent objections to his methodology, not his politics.

Refusing to examine the actual STATEMENTS, EVIDENCE, and REASONING of his critics and simply attributing their criticisms to political differences amounts to dodging the critics' actual arguments.

...but I have no doubt most of the hostility to him comes from having a differing opinion on the wholesomness of the gay lifestyle. Those who question global warming get the same treatment. It's the Saul Alinsky MO used by the left of isolate and attack.

Nice offtopic political rant. But let's not look at what Cameron's critics actually have to SAY, and consider whether or not their criticisms are valid; no, no, can't do that.

Anyway, this thread is not about Paul Cameron...

I didn't bring up his flawed and worthless research.

I suspect what you object to is the article I posted on the health risks of gay sex by Dr. John Diggs, which had 129 footnotes. Amazing how you just dismiss that out of hand because it goes against your PC thought.

Wasn't one of those footnotes to the long since discredited 1978 San Francisco study, of which the authors themselves said that it could not be used to determine ANYTHING about homosexuals in general?

Ah, yes, so it was. That study was the first reference Dr. Diggs cited, in the second paragraph. So much for academic rigor and medical objectivity.

Where? What was your answer? No one here has seen it, and neither have I.

Prove me a liar. Quote where you answered that question. I can't wait.

No problem. Heterosexual couples provide a mother and father, gay couples never do. The rare heterosexual couples of the same sex you bring up (I've never heard of it in real life) are not an optimal situation.

Uh, that's not an answer. Here's the question again:

"Okay, then explain to me how it's NOT hypocritical to claim that all these "problems" that you claim are your reasons for opposing gay marriage DO NOT APPLY to STRAIGHT people."

All you have done is repeat your hypocrisy without explaining it. You STILL won't advocate same-sex heterosexual couples, or any of the other nonconventional arrangements I've mentioned, being prohibited from raising children.

That remains PROOF that you're only concerned with homosexuality and not parenting; and that means your fake "reasons" are blatantly hypocritical.

YOU STILL HAVEN'T EXPLAINED WHY THAT ISN'T TRUE. Why can't you do that?

That's true; what makes it a non sequitur is that it had nothing whatever to do with the point it followed and to which it was supposedly intended to be a response.

Your opinion again.

Okay, let's look; I can do this for weeks. I intend to.

Here's what I posted:

"Okay, then explain to me how it's NOT hypocritical to claim that all these "problems" that you claim are your reasons for opposing gay marriage DO NOT APPLY to STRAIGHT people."

And here is what you wrote in "answer":

"Here is a definition of marriage for you:

"A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife."

Two men or two women or a man and three women don't don't make a marriage."

Please explain how that answers the question.

And good luck with that.

(1) There's nothing wrong with supporting ANY idea, for ANY reason; there's nothing constitutionally wrong with fundamentalists opposing gay marriage, and there's nothing constitutionally wrong with liberal Christians supporting it. I've posted this on this thread before, at least three times.

(2) The problem of constitutionality only arises when a bill becomes a law; further, it can only be declared unconstitutional and revoked if there is a court challenge to it, which is the case we're discussing on this thread. I've posted that before too.

(3) NOT prohibiting something infringes the rights of no one. Three or four times, at least.

(4) Therefore, a law which does NOT prohibit anything is constitutional whether it's based on religious ideas or not. Again, multiple posts.

(5) Therefore, when discussing the repeal of laws against gay marriage, there is no First Amendment religious-freedom concern; no one's rights are violated by NOT outlawing gay marriage. Those who don't believe in it aren't required to do it. Posted any multiple times.

As the SCOTUS hasn't decided whether or not Prop. 8 is a violation of anyone's rights, the above is your opinion.

Which is what you say when you have no arguments in reply. If you do, why don't you post them?

Why don't you dispute any of the points above? Where are your arguments against them?

Do you really think "that's your opinion" proves anything at all?

Isn't that just one more way you've found to avoid having to actually post coherent and meaningful, not to say logical, arguments, and actually respond to those of others?

It is interesting watching the mental contortions whereby you declare liberal Christian attempts to influence policy to be 'OK', and conservative Christian attempts at the same to be 'bad'. That is where your hypocracy comes in.

And your own, shall we say, disingenuousness comes in when you can write that directly under statements of mine which absolutely prove it false. Notice the passage in blue.

So, right out front, you think that "religious freedom" means the freedom to dictate the beliefs and practices of EVERYONE - but only for Christians. NO ONE ELSE IS TO HAVE ANY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AT ALL, but must kowtow to Christianity and live by its precepts.

That's the clear meaning of what you just posted.

No it isn't, it's a twisted caricature. I believe in the free excercise of religion, whether those religious beliefs lead a Christian (or other religion person) to oppose the Iraqi war, abortion, slavery, the death penalty, gay marriage, or whatever.

Fine, I agree with you. But that's not what we're discussing here, as you must know by now, but still keep pretending you don't.

Where we DON'T agree is when you claim, as you absolutely did in your last post, that religious freedom for Christians means that Christians have the right to impose their beliefs and practices on everyone. That's about as ludicrous and wrongheaded an idea as I can imagine, and is absolutely laughable to anyone who knows the ABC's of constitutional law. It's ridiculous, and the Founders would have laughed at you and thrown you out of Independence Hall.

Once again, the reason for someone else's vote is none of your business.

But the reason for a LAW is EVERYONE'S business. If the reason is to enforce a religious belief or prohibition, it's unconstitutional.

If we Jews were able to get a law passed which prohibited everyone in the US from eating pork, for religious reasons but through a majority vote, do you really think that would be constitutional, not to mention simply right?

We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

We certainly do have freedom from OTHER PEOPLE'S religions. You are free from Islam, in that no one requires you to follow Muslim beliefs and practices. I'd like to be free of Christianity, and not have you or anyone else require me or anyone else, including gay people, to follow Christian beliefs and practices.

That is the meaning, intent, and purpose of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Your trying to limit it to the prohibition of the establishment of a particular denomination violates both every court decision on the subject ever made, as well as the plain sense of the language of the amendment itself. As I've pointed out before (sigh), it says, "establishment of RELIGION," not "establishment of A religion" - yet ANOTHER point that you carefully delete and avoid responding to.

You seem to have a real problem when the democratic process doesn't go your way.

You seem to have much a bigger problem when the judicial process doesn't go YOUR way. The authority of the courts is in the Constitution too, you know, and you don't get to pretend it isn't there. The PEOPLE don't get to decide, sorry; the PEOPLE get to decide, but only within the limits of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. There simply is no higher authority in American law. If the Court rules that gay marriage is a right protected by the constitution, then it is such a right. That's the end of the national debate. Period.

Just as you don't understand my position, I don't understand Obama's support in the last election. However, I don't question his supporter's motives and call them names. I assume them to be people who love our country and want the best for it, although I consider them misguided. Whether I like it or not, Obama is POTUS for the next few year, and I wish him the best but will point out, hopefully respectfully, where I think him wrong.

I didn't vote for Obama, and I agree with you on your attitude toward him. I think much of what he and the Democratic Congress are doing is wrong too, or at least misguided; but not all.

All that is irrelevant to this thread, of course.

It's funny Christians get the rap for being smug, intolerant, judgemental, quick to condemn, etc.,

Yeah, isn't that strange? Gee, I wonder why.

...when actually the group doing the most of those things is the secular left, as you have demonstrated on this thread.

Except I'm not a member of the "secular left." I am a religious Jew and primarily conservative on most issues. This just isn't one of them. Sorry, but I'm not part of your vast leftwing conspiracy; you'll actually have to deal with my arguments instead of dismissing them because of their source, as you have most of the information on this subject.

Feel free to keep this up forever. I will.

[East of Eden]

So I'll ask it again: Has Obama tossed around vicious and false gay stereotypes, as you have?

Only I haven't done that, which makes it at the very least a mistatement by you.

I'll withdraw the term "bigot," but I'll stand by that; it's a fact.

No it isn't.

The criticisms of his work speak for themselves; they are accurate and cogent objections to his methodology, not his politics.

I would have to do a lot more research before I sign on to that smear.

"I suspect what you object to is the article I posted on the health risks of gay sex by Dr. John Diggs, which had 129 footnotes. Amazing how you just dismiss that out of hand because it goes against your PC thought."

Wasn't one of those footnotes to the long since discredited 1978 San Francisco study?

What about the other 128 footnotes? I scanned the first 35 and found these sources, which according to you are guilty of tossing around 'vicious and false gay stereotypes':

Center for Disease Control
San Francisco Chronicle
Archive of Internal Medicine
American Journal of Epidemiology
Journal of Family Practice
British Journal of Venereal Disease
Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report
University of Chicago Press
British Medical Journal
Pediatrics
The Lancet
Chicago Tribune
LGBT Health Channel
Surgery, Gynocology & Obstetrics
Annals of Clinical & Lab. Science
American Family Physician
Western Journal of Medicine

"Okay, then explain to me how it's NOT hypocritical to claim that all these "problems" that you claim are your reasons for opposing gay marriage DO NOT APPLY to STRAIGHT people."

All you have done is repeat your hypocrisy without explaining it. You STILL won't advocate same-sex heterosexual couples, or any of the other nonconventional arrangements I've mentioned, being prohibited from raising children.

Nobody asked how common it is, and nobody said it was an "optimal situation." The question is should it be LEGAL, and you know it; and you still won't answer the QUESTION:

How is it not hypocritical to claim your concern is about proper parenting - but ignore and condone the exact same problems when the parents are straight?

That remains PROOF that you're only concerned with homosexuality, and not parenting; and that means your fake "reasons" are blatantly hypocritical.

Allow me to blow up your argument. If you're asking if I would support two heterosexual men to adopt, the answer is no.

"Okay, then explain to me how it's NOT hypocritical to claim that all these "problems" that you claim are your reasons for opposing gay marriage DO NOT APPLY to STRAIGHT people."

See above.

And here is what you wrote in "answer":

"Here is a definition of marriage for you:

"A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife."

Two men or two women or a man and three women don't don't make a marriage."

Please explain how that answers the question.

That is the source of much of the opposition to gay marriage. Your novel idea for now anyway, doesn't have majority support.

(1) There's nothing wrong with supporting ANY idea, for ANY reason; there's nothing constitutionally wrong with fundamentalists opposing gay marriage, and there's nothing constitutionally wrong with liberal Christians supporting it. I've posted this on this thread before, at least three times.

(2) The problem of constitutionality only arises when a bill becomes a law; further, it can only be declared unconstitutional and revoked if there is a court challenge to it, which is the case we're discussing on this thread. I've posted that before too.

You support Christians being involved in politics as long as there position doesn't prevail, got it.

(3) NOT prohibiting something infringes the rights of no one. Three or four times, at least.

And three or four times I've said your attempt to invalidate Christians vote is an infringement on their free excercise of religion.

Fine, I agree with you. But that's not what we're discussing here, as you must know by now but still keep pretending you don't.

Where we DON'T agree is when you claim, as you absolutely did in your last post, that religious freedom for Christians means that Christians have the right to impose their beliefs and practices on everyone. That's about as ludicrous and wrongheaded an idea as I can imagine, and is absolutely laughable to anyone who knows the ABC's of constitutional law. It's ridiculous.

Too bad the SCOTUS doesn't agree with you. As I've said before, all laws are an imposition of someone's morality. Your objection to that truth is very selective.

But the reason for a LAW is EVERYONE'S business. If the reason is to enforce a religious belief or prohibition, it's unconstitutional.

Again, the SCOTUS hasn't said so on gay marriage, making it nothing more than your opinion.

If we Jews were able to get a law passed which prohibited everyone in the US from eating pork, for religious reasons but through a majority vote, do you really think that would be constitutional, not to mention simply right?

Your argument falls down because not all support for Prop. 8 is religious. I'm sure you could likewise find support for the pork ban on health grounds.

We certainly have freedom from OTHER PEOPLE'S religions. You are free from Islam, in that no one requires you to follow Muslim beliefs and practices. I'd like to be free of Christianity, and not have you or anyone else require me or anyone else, including gay people, to follow Christian beliefs and practices.

Perhaps you should move to Israel rather than living in a majority Christian country.

That's a bit of judgment you don't have the right to make, since it hasn't happened;

Wrong, the democratic process has gone against your opinion just about everywhere there's been a referendum on gay marriage.

but you seem to have much a bigger problem when the judicial process doesn't go your way. The authority of the courts is in the Constitution too, you know, and you don't get to pretend it isn't there. The PEOPLE don't get to decide, sorry; the PEOPLE within the limits of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court is the final authority, and there simply is no other in American law. If the Court rules that gay marriage is a right protected by the constitution, then it is such a right. That's the end of the national debate. Period.

And if they rule my way, that's the end also.

Except I'm not a member of the "secular left." I am a religious Jew and primarily conservative on most issues. This just isn't one of them. Sorry, but I'm not part of your vast leftwing conspiracy; you'll actually have to deal with my arguments instead of dismissing them because of their source, as you have most of the information on this subject.

I dismiss them because they are illogical, and start from the false premise that two men or women have some kind of Contitutional right to get married. 'Gay marrigage' is an oxymoron.

Feel free to keep this up forever. I will.

Suit yourself. We've both said our pieces and I'm not going to change your mind and you won't change mine. I'll be on vacation next week and won't be on this forum.

[cnorman18]

So I'll ask it again: Has Obama tossed around vicious and false gay stereotypes, as you have?

Only I haven't done that, which makes it at the very least a mistatement by you.

I'll withdraw the term "bigot," but I'll stand by that; it's a fact.

No it isn't.

Claiming that extreme promiscuity is "part and parcel" of being gay is doing precisely that. MOST of what you've said about gays has consisted of such stereotypes.

The criticisms of his work speak for themselves; they are accurate and cogent objections to his methodology, not his politics.

I would have to do a lot more research before I sign on to that smear.

Maybe you shouldn't characterize it as a "smear" till you've actually read it and thought about it.

"I suspect what you object to is the article I posted on the health risks of gay sex by Dr. John Diggs, which had 129 footnotes. Amazing how you just dismiss that out of hand because it goes against your PC thought."

Wasn't one of those footnotes to the long since discredited 1978 San Francisco study?

What about the other 128 footnotes?

If it had 1,000 footnotes and the first reference is to a study that was discredited for those purposes long ago, and the use of which was denounced by the authors themselves as improper, how can any actual scientist, or anyone actually interested in finding out the truth as opposed to promoting an agenda, take it seriously? That's like citing an article on Judaism where the first reference is to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It loses credibility in the first paragraph.

"Okay, then explain to me how it's NOT hypocritical to claim that all these "problems" that you claim are your reasons for opposing gay marriage DO NOT APPLY to STRAIGHT people."

All you have done is repeat your hypocrisy without explaining it. You STILL won't advocate same-sex heterosexual couples, or any of the other nonconventional arrangements I've mentioned, being prohibited from raising children.

Nobody asked how common it is, and nobody said it was an "optimal situation." The question is should it be LEGAL, and you know it; and you still won't answer the QUESTION:

How is it not hypocritical to claim your concern is about proper parenting - but ignore and condone the exact same problems when the parents are straight?

That remains PROOF that you're only concerned with homosexuality, and not parenting; and that means your fake "reasons" are blatantly hypocritical.

Allow me to blow up your argument. If you're asking if I would support two heterosexual men to adopt, the answer is no.

Nice attempt at changing the subject, but you're still ducking the question. No one's talking about two heterosexual men adopting.

Would you make it illegal for them to care for a child? Yes or no will do, thanks very much.

"Okay, then explain to me how it's NOT hypocritical to claim that all these "problems" that you claim are your reasons for opposing gay marriage DO NOT APPLY to STRAIGHT people."

See above.

Likewise. Still ducking.

And here is what you wrote in "answer":

"Here is a definition of marriage for you:

"A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife."

Two men or two women or a man and three women don't don't make a marriage."

Please explain how that answers the question.

That is the source of much of the opposition to gay marriage.

HOW DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION?

If anyone here who reads English thinks that that's an answer, please step forward and say so.

Your novel idea for now anyway, doesn't have majority support.

Majority support doesn't matter. The decision of the Supreme Court does. As you've been told many times and ignored, if SLAVERY were reinstituted by majority vote, that vote would be meaningless. Such a law would be overturned and ruled null and void within weeks, if not days, and should be.

(1) There's nothing wrong with supporting ANY idea, for ANY reason; there's nothing constitutionally wrong with fundamentalists opposing gay marriage, and there's nothing constitutionally wrong with liberal Christians supporting it. I've posted this on this thread before, at least three times.

(2) The problem of constitutionality only arises when a bill becomes a law; further, it can only be declared unconstitutional and revoked if there is a court challenge to it, which is the case we're discussing on this thread. I've posted that before too.

You support Christians being involved in politics as long as there position doesn't prevail, got it.

Another misstatement of my position. I support Christians being involved in politics, but I reject their being allowed to revoke the rights of others, which you support. The Constitution rejects that idea, too.

(3) NOT prohibiting something infringes the rights of no one. Three or four times, at least.

And three or four times I've said your attempt to invalidate Christians vote is an infringement on their free excercise of religion.

I'm not "attempting to invalidate" anything. The vote against Prop 8 was perfectly valid; but its results will probably be overturned by the Court. No one's "vote" is being invalidated. The LAW is. Were the "votes" of white supremacists and racial bigots "invalidated" by the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1964?

If they were, tough. Justice trumps majority rule. That's one of the basic principles of constitutional democracy. Didn't you ever take a Civics class where they taught you about "majority rule" not being the same as "the tyranny of the majority"? Where they taught you about "protecting the rights of the minority"? These are all very basic concepts vital and central to the American system.

MORE TO THE POINT, which you keep avoiding: How would gay marriage being legal interfere with your practice of your own religion? Other than claiming that your freedom of religion means that you can push everyone else around, how does that work? Funny how you can't explain that.

Where we DON'T agree is when you claim, as you absolutely did in your last post, that religious freedom for Christians means that Christians have the right to impose their beliefs and practices on everyone. That's about as ludicrous and wrongheaded an idea as I can imagine, and is absolutely laughable to anyone who knows the ABC's of constitutional law. It's ridiculous.

Too bad the SCOTUS doesn't agree with you.

I'll stand by what I said; it's ridiculous.

We'll see if the Supreme Court agrees with YOU that "Christians have the right to impose their beliefs and practices on everyone." Don't bet the farm.

I frankly don't know how anyone could seriously make that statement with a straight face. No competent lawyer in the US, let alone a judge, would agree with you on that. Try to find one who does.

But the reason for a LAW is EVERYONE'S business. If the reason is to enforce a religious belief or prohibition, it's unconstitutional.

Again, the SCOTUS hasn't said so on gay marriage, making it nothing more than your opinion.

Since "your opinion" translates to "I don't have an answer for that," I'll let it go. We'll see who's right when the Court rules.

If we Jews were able to get a law passed which prohibited everyone in the US from eating pork, for religious reasons but through a majority vote, do you really think that would be constitutional, not to mention simply right?

Your argument falls down because not all support for Prop. 8 is religious. I'm sure you could likewise find support for the pork ban on health grounds.

(Sigh) Once again, you refuse to answer the question; annoying habit, that.

Do you think that law would be Constitutional? Do you think it would be RIGHT?

We certainly have freedom from OTHER PEOPLE'S religions. You are free from Islam, in that no one requires you to follow Muslim beliefs and practices. I'd like to be free of Christianity, and not have you or anyone else require me or anyone else, including gay people, to follow Christian beliefs and practices.

Perhaps you should move to Israel rather than living in a majority Christian country.

Unbelievable.

The only alternative you want to leave, for all the non-Christians that don't want to follow YOUR religious beliefs and practices, is just to move out of the US?

I guess people would soon stop saying "It's a free country" if you were in charge. It wouldn't be, not any more.

Sorry, but "theocracy" is not the American system of government.

That's a bit of judgment you don't have the right to make, since it hasn't happened;

Wrong, the democratic process has gone against your opinion just about everywhere there's been a referendum on gay marriage.

I admit that's true; and if by "have a problem," you mean that I don't agree with it, you'd be right. I think those results should be appealed to the Court, and they are. What's wrong with that? If they had gone the other way, so would you.

but you seem to have much a bigger problem when the judicial process doesn't go your way. The authority of the courts is in the Constitution too, you know, and you don't get to pretend it isn't there. The PEOPLE don't get to decide, sorry; the PEOPLE within the limits of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court is the final authority, and there simply is no other in American law. If the Court rules that gay marriage is a right protected by the constitution, then it is such a right. That's the end of the national debate. Period.

And if they rule my way, that's the end also.

Yes, but it depends on the ruling for both of us. If it doesn't close the door to further appeals in either direction, the Court could take it up again. Many SCOTUS rulings are very limited and don't necessarily settle a question, e.g. Second Amendment issues. We'll have to see what happens. Many on both sides are hoping for a ruling that will settle the matter once and for all, but they may be disappointed.

Except I'm not a member of the "secular left." I am a religious Jew and primarily conservative on most issues. This just isn't one of them. Sorry, but I'm not part of your vast leftwing conspiracy; you'll actually have to deal with my arguments instead of dismissing them because of their source, as you have most of the information on this subject.

I dismiss them because they are illogical...

You haven't indicated that anywhere. All you've done is quote deeply flawed studies that agree with you, and dismiss arguments you don't like because of their supposed "political agenda," not because you can find flaws in the data or the reasoning.

...and start from the false premise that two men or women have some kind of Contitutional right to get married. 'Gay marrigage' is an oxymoron.

But you've never explained why that's a "false premise." Marriage has been established as an absolute human right by the Court, available even to felons; and since there are now thousands of same-sex spouses, in several states, "gay marriage" isn't an oxymoron any more and the precedent has been established. The Equal Protection clause indicates that no one can be denied the right to marry on account of their gender, and the Full Faith and Credit clause indicates that any gay couple married in, say, Massachusetts, must be recognized as a married couple, with all the rights pertaining thereto, in every state in the Union.

That's where the law stands at present. We'll see if the Court agrees with all the Christians in California and decides to deny a basic right to certain people in America and declare them to be second-class citizens with limited rights.

I think that very unlikely indeed, and I hope I'm right. The Justices have made very bad rulings before, and we might be stuck with another; but they sometimes go back and correct the mistakes of previous courts, too.

I just think that if we'd all stop condemning and despising our fellow citizens because they think and act differently, while harming no one, we'd have a better country.

I never understood why so many Christians think it's their job to monitor and control everyone ELSE'S morality, including non-Christians, when Jesus himself addressed that question directly:

"Master, will those who are saved be many?"

"Take care that YOU enter in through the narrow door."

In other words, mind your own damned business and judge yourself, not others.

[East of Eden]

Claiming that extreme promiscuity is "part and parcel" of being gay is doing precisely that.

Not much point in a debate if your PC mindset prevents you from seeing the obvious. Here is verification of the promiscuity part from a gay newspaper:



Are ‘Gay’ Men More Promiscuous than Straights?
Excerpted from Surveys Reveal Sex Practices of Homosexuals, published Sept 15, 2006, by Agape Press:

…A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300…

Here are the actual stats for question 9:

Homosexual males only (2294 responses)
104 or 4.5% had 0 same-sex partners in their lifetime
79 or 3.4% had only 1 same-sex partner
330 or 14.4% had 2-5 same-sex partners
264 or 11.5% had 6-10 same-sex partners
306 or 13.3% had 11-20 same-sex partners
399 or 17.4% had 21-50 same-sex partners
288 or 12.6% had 51-100 same-sex partners
276 or 12.0% had 101-300 same-sex partners
248 or 10.8% had more than 300 same-sex partners

(The total of homosexual males in this study reporting more than 50 sex partners in their lifetime is 35.4%. See The Advocate’s website for lesbian-only and combined male and female stats.)

*****

Additionally, question 14 asks Have you ever had sex with more than one same-sex partner at the same time?

Homosexual males only (2304 total responses)
No, never – 893 or 38.8%
Yes, 3-ways only – 748 or 32.5%
Yes, more than 3-ways on occasion – 663 or 28.8%

(Question: Do you suppose 61% of heterosexuals participate in group sex?)

A survey in Ireland by the Gay Men’s Health Project found that almost half of homosexuals said they were having unprotected sex.

The Advocate survey…found that 55 percent of homosexuals said they never (20%), occasionally (10%) or usually (25%) practiced so-called “safer sex.�

The actual stats for question 13:

Homosexual males only (2304 responses)
Always – 1075 or 46.7%
Occasionally – 243 or 10.5%
Usually – 651 or 28.3%
Never – 335 or 14.5%

…The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: “[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are.�

MOST of what you've said about gays has consisted of such stereotypes.

....backed up by over a hundred footnotes.

Maybe you shouldn't characterize it as a "smear" till you've actually read it and thought about it.

I would say the same for you about the article I posted.

If it had 1,000 footnotes and the first reference is to a study that was discredited for those purposes long ago, and the use of which was denounced by the authors themselves as improper, how can any actual scientist, or anyone actually interested in finding out the truth as opposed to promoting an agenda, take it seriously? That's like citing an article on Judaism where the first reference is to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It loses credibility in the first paragraph.

In other words, your mind is made up and you don't care about facts.

Nice attempt at changing the subject, but you're still ducking the question. No one's talking about two heterosexual men adopting.

Would you make it illegal for them to care for a child? Yes or no will do, thanks very much.

If it were put to a referendum, I would vote against it. Why shortchange the child when so many want to adopt. If you're talking about a blood relative being appointed as guardian, that's something else.

Likewise. Still ducking.

Wrong again.

Majority support doesn't matter. The decision of the Supreme Court does. As you've been told many times and ignored, if SLAVERY were reinstituted by majority vote, that vote would be meaningless. Such a law would be overturned and ruled null and void within weeks, if not days, and should be.

Irrelevant, but what will you do if the SCOTUS affirms Prop. 8?

(2) The problem of constitutionality only arises when a bill becomes a law; further, it can only be declared unconstitutional and revoked if there is a court challenge to it, which is the case we're discussing on this thread. I've posted that before too.

Right, and we'll see what happens.

Another misstatement of my position. I support Christians being involved in politics, but I reject their being allowed to revoke the rights of others, which you support. The Constitution rejects that idea, too.

.....in your opinion.

I'm not "attempting to invalidate" anything. The vote against Prop 8 was perfectly valid; but its results will probably be overturned by the Court. No one's "vote" is being invalidated. The LAW is. Were the "votes" of white supremacists and racial bigots "invalidated" by the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1964?

OK, as we've agreed, let's see what the Court says.

If they were, tough. Justice trumps majority rule. That's one of the basic principles of constitutional democracy. Didn't you ever take a Civics class where they taught you about "majority rule" not being the same as "the tyranny of the majority"? Where they taught you about "protecting the rights of the minority"? These are all very basic concepts vital and central to the American system.

And a matter of Court interpretation.

MORE TO THE POINT, which you keep avoiding: How would gay marriage being legal interfere with your practice of your own religion? Other than claiming that your freedom of religion means that you can push everyone else around, how does that work? Funny how you can't explain that.

So by that reasoning why not let Mormons and Muslims have as many wives as they want? Funny how you ignore that.

We'll see if the Supreme Court agrees with YOU that "Christians have the right to impose their beliefs and practices on everyone."

I'm sure they're wise enough not to put it in the ridiculous terms you do.

I frankly don't know how anyone could seriously make that statement with a straight face. No competent lawyer in the US, let alone a judge, would agree with you on that. Try to find one who does.

And you just said you don't know how the Court will rule.

Since "your opinion" translates to "I don't have an answer for that," I'll let it go.

In your head maybe. It means 'your opinion', which I've dealt with all through this thread.

(Sigh) Once again, you refuse to answer the question; annoying habit, that.

As I am with your inability to comprehend answers.

Do you think that law would be Constitutional? Do you think it would be RIGHT?

If it were SOLELY religious, no. The Prop. 8 support isn't solely religious, making your comparison moot.

Unbelievable.

The only alternative you want to leave, for all the non-Christians that don't want to follow YOUR religious beliefs and practices, is just to move out of the US?

I guess people would soon stop saying "It's a free country" if you were in charge. It wouldn't be, not any more.

I'm always amazed by non-Christians who live here and whine about how Christians live out their lives. America is more Christian than India is Hindu or Egypt is Muslim. I wouldn't go to India and complain about Hindu behavior.

Sorry, but "theocracy" is not the American system of government.

Comparing support of Prop.8 to theocracy is another gross misrepresentation on your part. Nobody is proposing that.

You haven't indicated that anywhere. All you've done is quote deeply flawed studies that agree with you, and dismiss arguments you don't like because of their supposed "political agenda," not because you can find flaws in the data or the reasoning.

Exactly what you do.

But you've never explained why that's a "false premise." Marriage has been established as an absolute human right by the Court, available even to felons; and since there are now thousands of same-sex spouses, in several states, "gay marriage" isn't an oxymoron any more and the precedent has been established.

So has the precedent that marriage is between a man and a woman.

That's where the law stands at present. We'll see if the Court agrees with all the Christians in California and decides to deny a basic right to certain people in America and declare them to be second-class citizens with limited rights.

So Mormons and Muslims who want more wives are 2nd class citizens with limited rights?

I just think that if we'd all stop condemning and despising our fellow citizens because they think and act differently, while harming no one, we'd have a better country.

Agreed, and would suggest you stop doing it to Christians who believe differently than you.

I never understood why so many Christians think it's their job to monitor and control everyone ELSE'S morality, including non-Christians, when Jesus himself addressed that question directly:

"Master, will those who are saved be many?"

"Take care that YOU enter in through the narrow door."

In other words, mind your own damned business and judge yourself, not others.

Out of context, but Jesus also called us to be salt and light to our generation.