Steve says:

Jon Stewart gave my favorite argument in favor of gay marriage, “It’s not mandatory is it ?”.

Mextli says:

ECA #73
“Women in the USA had NO RIGHTS, even to their OWN children, until about the 70′s.”

“Rights for women only started in the LATE 40′s.”

Do you notice any inconsistency in those statements?

Dallas says:

#80 Meh, you’re too analytical to pass judgement on what constitutes ‘injuries’ to these social matters. It’s like telling the black guy ” why you merely need to walk over there to get a drink of water. What’s your quarrel?”

Your argument that everyone would dump marriage to avoid taxes for schools is not only a gross false generalization but misses the point. I support community pooling of resources for things like education. The difference is you would exchange marriage rights for pure financial gain whereas I would exchange it primarily for the unjust principles of being relegated to a second class citizen yet pay first class taxes.

Still don’t get it? It’s probably because you think the world should get measured by your own yardstick. You’re mind is no different than these prop 8 proponents other than you apply a scientific rationalization to the problem. Social issues are a poor fit for you.

For the record, I couldn’t care less about marriage other than the principle of the injustices surrounding it. You wrongly assumed that my being gay would provide a test case for your analytical calculation of tangible injuries but I answered to provide what I thought was a rational list of ‘injuries’.
——–
Pedrito, does your village elder perform gay ceremonies? If so, I will consider visiting as a tourist and I tip well.

MikeN says:

>Ted Olson is an example of what the Republican Party used to be. Not for decades – not since Richard Nixon led the move to deliberately exploit racism with his Southern Strategy.

So I guess Dwight David Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, William F Buckley, Robert Taft, Calvin Coolidge, Warren Harding, and Herbert Hoover would have supported this court decision?

bobbo, the law is an ass===get on and RIDE!!!! says:

“You know” I’m 50% blitzed right now on home made distilled alcohol transmuted into vodka, kahlua, and bailey’s irish cream==aka a screaming orgasism. Too sweet for me.

Whenever I drink too much, I get “talkative.” Imagine my complained of over posting here as taking place during my comatose periods. Ha, ha. I always crack myself up.

So, what has transpired? – – – DALLAS!! but lets go serially.

1==#84–Pedro==trying to interject his own sense of humor. Same joke told over and over gets old after the third time.

2==#85–GRtak==started off interestingly but totally lost me at your second sentence. Sum it up, an anarchy is the worst state of affairs for human freedom. You’ll have to rephrase/reconstruct to have any credible idea there.

3==Steve–“Its not mandatory is it?” /// Very funny summary of the imaginary threat any new idea has to those stuck in their ways. Instructive.

4==#87–Jescott==good demonstration that the more “general” a dispute can be articulated, the more it can be placed out of context. So, is the anti-same sex marriage concept drawn wholly from a religious context? Is that by dogma or historical happenstance? Does it matter? I think the concept of inalienable rights can be analyzed from other than a religious concept===like history and biology? Values still “apply” even in the appreciation of objective facts? Sounds just as likely that YOUR religion is just of the opposition kind?

5==Rights for women have always existed to lesser degree and over time have increased to normalize with men. The real issue is should they “suffer” any consequence for choices freely made? Talking about equal pay for equal work which currently wants to equate the pay of a temp secretary to a career path accounts analyst. Is taking 4-6-8 years off to have/raise kiddies be recognized in the free market place or is that discrimination. Seemingly reasonable people disagree on this point.

6==Bigotry like Beauty has a few universal qualities. Symmetry being one of many. Imagine your “self” being in the situation of the person of interest. If you were leading his/her/their life with only the characteristic of note being different, would you think your treatment “just?” Or can you even separate out your own hypocrisy? Few can/do.

7==#90–Dallas==injuries wasn’t the question. The question was “what rights are you being denied that cannot be remedied by written documents.” True, its analytically based, but with an overarching moral view: we all suffer, find your happiness where you may. Recognizing life can always be better or worse helps put things in proper perspective. Or even if not proper, more palatable? Everyone with an ounce of desire can list what life has denied them==all to the damage of appreciating what it has provided===if nothing else the time in which to evaluate and compare the two. This does not dismiss the quality of denial, but everything is relative. When I personally am feeling down, I thank god I’m not a Roman Galley Slave or a Welsh Coal Miner or religious, or otherwise mentally challenged. Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said: “Everyone is about as happy as they choose to be.” I haven’t been able to confirm that quote, but its true enough. Always pulls me back from the bottom.

Just checking==yea, the question first came up in the context of “injuries” you felt. And what you listed were having to resign documents. Like I said, irritating, but not “injurious” in the way I would take it. Who can judge? I think you are skimming and not wanting to delve deeper==and who would/should on a blog absent Orgasm on the Beach?

#91–Tom==much of what we “are” is written in the stars and there is no choice about it except how we try and deal with it. I did not choose to be hetero and take no special pride in it. I did not choose to have a near photographic memory on too many events in my life. The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is very appealing from time to time, but such relief eludes me. If I could erase my devils, how would my angels be affected? Ha, ha. Self aware==to a limit. Life is what we make it, the onus is on ourselves.

#92–Pedro==again???? I’ve heard of one note ponies, did not know it went across species.

Lets see. What now??? Think I’ll cleanse my palate with a beer.

Cheers.

BuzzMega says:

The finances behind Prop 8 are largely Mormon.

What if we get enough signatures to force an initiative to euthanize all Mormons? It would have to come to a vote, by CA law.

Of COURSE it would never be implementable, even if it was approved by 51% of the electorate, but at least the Mormons would get to feel the issue in their own shoes. A political metaphor of sorts.

ECA says:

96,
There is no MAJORITY..less then 50% vote.

Im going to give a FEW of you a history lesson.
WHO knows when MARRIAGE MEANT you had rights?
Only in the last 30 years.
HOW long has marriage been a SIGN of ownership, ONLY. ALWAYS.
Even if you had LAND as a FEMALE(this was the basis of voting) YOU HAD NO RIGHT to vote.
Even if you found your husband with Another girl, IN BED and enjoying it…YOU HAD NO RIGHTS..
Even if you had 5+ kids with 1 MAN, you would NOT get a PENNY in support.
EVEN if your husband had 10 wives AROUND the nation…YOU HAD NO RIGHTS.
We might as well go join the taliban, and OTHER muslim nations.
UNTIL about the 70’s…MARRIAGE GAVE NOTHING to the family. ANd the CHURCHES were the WORST part.

AFTER the 70’s the marriage of 2 persons was SHARING ALL THINGS.. nothing more. It has NOTHING to do with SEX. IT was the RIGHTS women GAINED from marriage.

Cursor_ says:

#94
Apparently the people of this country no longer have a choice, they have no vote, they have no freedom. The government is a tyranny, and the people do not determine what is right in this country but the government and liberal elites. Well done people, you have destroyed this once great nation, now watch it rot to the core.

The right to Vote does not imbue the voter with ethical sense. This is where impartial judges have to step in and overturn rules that discriminate against sectors of the population.

You cannot cloak yourself in liberty while denying the liberty of others.

Cursor_

It's quality not equality says:

Here you go JMRouse in response to your question,

“I challenge anyone in support of banning same-sex marriage to give me one logical reason why the ban should be upheld that is not based on a religious belief. I have not heard any.”

One logical reason, men + woman + sex = children born afresh quite a bit of the time.

Men + men + sex never ever = children born afresh.

This argument about equality is valid when it comes to concepts of commitment and partnership and stops there.

If gay couples were truly = they could pop out kids. The fight seems to be more about a word as gay couples in many states already have equal protections, they are just not called “married”.

I’m gay and I approve this message.

± says:

#105 You got it backwards. Civil union is general, marriage is specific.

Marriage has always been a union between opposite sexes. The word is taken. The movement won’t get my support until they pick another word; and as long as they want to use the word “marriage”, I am actively against them. I don’t want to have to clarify to people about what sex I have a civil union with when I say I am married.

Frogger says:

#15 Smartalix. Those arguments are valid.
Douche.

smartalix says:

Pedro,

By that logic, all childless couples shouldn’t be married.

Dallas says:

#95 Bobbo said “…eleven paragraphs…. ==yea, the question first came up in the context of “injuries” you felt. And what you listed were having to resign documents. Like I said, irritating, but not “injurious” in the way I would take it. Who can judge? I think you are skimming and not wanting to delve deeper==and who would/should on a blog absent Orgasm on the Beach?….”

Good grief you are verbose…
That “signing documents” costed me $7,000 in attorney fees. It’s not like the bible thumping infiltrators at my City government issued me gay couple documents fr crying out loud.

At the risk of getting Pedro excited, I think you really a anal about being right. OMG!! We will never get married for sure.

Dallas says:

I see the marriage drivel has descended now to the ability to have children.

Historically speaking, “marriage” was created and recreated by a multitude of ancient cultures whose definition continues to evolve. From a form of contractual rights to ‘owning’ a woman for exclusive sexual contact to a contract that allows for say, Pedro’s mule to be passed on to rightful inheritors.

The issue is the taliban has claimed exclusive definition of that term to suit their needs and injected it in government.

faustus says:

there is an old saying “it took nixon to go the china.” and if the gays are to get this through it will take ppl like olson to get it through. but i believe nixon would have be behind olson on this way before the reagan/ bush goons would have been. and don’t think you can say nixon’s southern stategy depended on racism or started the republicans down this slippery slope. nixon was vice-president when the national guard was sent to the south to force integration in the schools and there is no where where he didn’t support integration in the south.

republicans got off on the wrong road of anti- civil liberties when southern conservative religious leaders started supporting the reagan/bush republicans with the notion public morality, as they saw it, could and should be legislated. you would never know it now but one of the pillars of conservative thought was always civil liberties. i put the blame on reagan/bush for the most unholy of matrimonies… religion married to politics.