patrick.net

I said you often quote the Bible. You then asked: "What are you taking [sic] about? Where do I quote the Bible?" I provided a link with examples.

freak80 says

You just repeated the same stuff I already soundly refuted.

You haven't refuted anything. To the contrary, you've admitted that you oppose the equal protection of the laws relating to marriage, i.e. you insist there must be a "gay exception" to render gay couples strangers to the laws that everyone else takes for granted, and it remains your only basis for rejecting the Democratic party. BTW, if the Republican Party decrees that only Baptists can marry, or that Catholics should be restricted to marrying only other Catholics (which happens to be the position of the Vatican), will you continue to insist that it's a religious institution not a right?

freak80 says

One party says I "hate" just because I believe that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman.

I'm pretty sure that democrats are a-okay with you defining marriage for yourself as one man and one woman. The problem the pro-marriage-equality movement has is when you define marriage for all of us and force that definition and the legal consequences of it down our throats by making it into law.

I am a heterosexual male. I have no gay friends. But I find it absolutely unacceptable that gay people have to pay higher income taxes, are wrongfully denied health and other benefits, and are denied other rights on the basis of their sexual orientation. My support of marriage equality has nothing to do with the word or the definition of marriage and everything to do with equality under law. Hell, I've argued that there shouldn't even be a legal definition of marriage or any laws that use the word marriage.

You can have the word, but you can’t have other people’s rights.

Any law that directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly denies equal legal status and rights to same-sex couples as different-sex couples is a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and goes against the very foundation of our country: all men are created equal with the same rights.

The thing is, republicans are supposed to believe in this as well. Aren’t republicans always stating things like there are too many regulations, government should be small and nonintrusive, the individual matters not the group (i.e. socialism bad, capitalism good)? Well, shouldn’t there be less regulation of marriage? Doesn’t a small, nonintrusive government stay out of the marriage business?

Why should marriage equality even be a left vs. right issue if it’s not about bigotry and denying rights to people? Sure, you can be against gay marriage as a social and as a religious institution. But to be against gay marriage as a secular, legal institution is to be against the 14th Amendment.

freak80 says

If they had their way, I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail.

I know of no instance where anyone has accused a person of a hate crime for being against marriage equality. It would be a ridiculous accusation. Now maybe there are a few nuts that would make such a claim, but it is not a mainstream belief of democrats, liberals, or leftists.

curious2 says

basis for condemning the Democratic party.

I don't "condemn" the Democratic party. I just won't vote for them, since people like you represent the base. I'm not going to vote for a party that considers "traditional marriage" to be the same thing as "discrimination."

Not all "discrimination" is bad. There's a reason why one particular relationship (1 man + 1 woman) was given special treatment under the law. Can you think of it?

That doesn't mean the other relationships (like casual friendships, homosexual relationships, etc) are looked at as "necessarily inferior" in the eyes of the law.

I get the sense that you're trying to draw a false analogy between the "gay marriage" movement and the struggle to end slavery and/or abolish Jim Crow, etc. Nobody is trying to prevent gays from voting, having a fair trial, or sitting in the front of the bus. Not me, at least.

curious2 says

To the contrary, you've admitted that you oppose the equal protection of the laws relating to marriage, i.e. you insist there must be a "gay exception" to render gay couples strangers to the laws that everyone else takes for granted

You're putting words in my mouth. You're using the classic "straw man" tactic. It's on display for all to see.

I think two best friends shouldn't be able to marry (each other). I believe they should be able to marry a member of the opposite sex (within the usual restrictions of course). That doesn't mean those two folks don't have equal protection under the law.

freak80 says

There's a reason why one particular relationship (1 man + 1 woman) was given special treatment under the law. Can you think of it?

Actually no, I can't think of any reason that hasn't been soundly refuted. That's why marriage equality tends to prevail in court, where people have to present facts and laws to support their positions. Ballot measures driven by fear-mongering preachers and pols trying to gain money and power for themselves are a different story though.

Dan8267 says

I know of no instance where anyone has accused a person of a hate crime for being against marriage equality... Now maybe there are a few nuts that would make such a claim, but it is not a mainstream belief of democrats, liberals, or leftists.

It's a shibboleth fabricated by preachers and PACs to fool parishioners into voting against equal rights, thereby stoking division and animosity, which the preachers and pols can profit from in terms of $ and power for themselves. "Divide and misrule."

curious2 says

Actually no, I can't think of any reason that hasn't been soundly refuted.

Really? Surely you jest. There's nothing that makes a sexual relationship between a male and female fundamentally different than all other relationships?

freak80 says

You're putting words in my mouth.

Wow, your memory is faulty again. You've said repeatedly that you oppose the equal protection of the marriage laws for gay couples. For example:

freak80 says

marriage should be defined as one man and one woman.

freak80 says

Not all "discrimination" is bad.

freak80 says

I just don't think such behavior should be codified into law, that's all.

And, you've confirmed that the subject is so important to you that you can't vote for a party that supports the equal protection of the marriage laws:

freak80 says

I'm not going to vote for a party that considers "traditional marriage" to be the same thing as "discrimination."

(BTW, "traditional marriage" means different things to different people. In places where same-sex marriage has been recognized for a long time, it's traditional. Again, check John Boswell's book about Catholic same-sex marriage ceremonies in pre-modern Europe. Or current Hungary, which recognized same-sex marriage at common law because it had always been that way.)

freak80 says

I don't "condemn" the Democratic party. I just won't vote for them, since people like you represent the base. I'm not going to vote for a party that considers "traditional marriage" to be the same thing as "discrimination."

The thing is they don’t. That’s exactly the type of bubble thinking that Bill Maher talks about on Real Time.

Aside from the fact that there are plenty of independents like me who are for marriage equality, not even the most leftist, hippie, non-bathing, pot smoking, vegan wiccan in the Democratic Party believes for one second that “traditional marriage” is discrimination. No one has ever proposed banning traditional, i.e. heterosexual, marriage. Absolutely no one.

Well, no one except me, but I only proposed eliminating it as a legal institution and rewriting our laws to be marriage agnostic. Not even I have proposed ending it as a social or religious institution. I just want to update the tax forms, health insurance contracts, etc. to not be based on marriage but rather dependents. By my philosophy, government shouldn’t even be in the business of marriage.

But certainly, allowing homosexual marriage does not in any way harm heterosexual marriage. Banning gay marriage does not protect straight marriage in any way. The rights of heterosexual couples are not infringed upon by extending those rights to homosexual couples. And to date, no opponent of gay marriage has ever given the slightest reason why the law should differentiate between heterosexual relationships and homosexual ones and why the law should treat the later as inferior. And that is the only pertinent matter to deciding whether or not gay and straight marriage should be equal under law.

Again, what happens in the legal code and business contracts does not in any way affect your religious ceremonies or your social status. It’s only about laws.

freak80 says

Really? Surely you jest. There's nothing that makes a sexual relationship between a male and female fundamentally different than all other relationships?

Really, no joke, and again you're back to sex and anatomy. Try reading the unanimous ruling written by the Iowa Supreme Court, affirming the district court that had reached the same conclusion:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20090403iowa-text.pdf

If you can find an argument they didn't consider, please let us know.

curious2 says

marriage equality

The "marriage equality" slogan could be used to justify almost *any* arrangement.

Do you "discriminate" against polygamist marriage? Does "marriage equality" apply to polygamists?

I'm not against "equality" just because I want to keep the 1 man + 1 woman definition of marriage. Any more than you are against "equality" when you put limitations (of any kind) on the definition of marriage.

Do you put *any* kind of limitation on the definition of marriage? If so, you are against "equality" (by your definition).

curious2 says

t's a shibboleth fabricated by preachers and PACs to fool parishioners into voting against equal rights, thereby stoking division and animosity, which the preachers and pols can profit from in terms of $ and power for themselves. "Divide and misrule."

Or as Bill Maher puts it, "the bubble that nothing gets through".

http://www.youtube.com/embed/wEElA5b4AkM

I really wished that the republicans on this site would disprove that they live in a bubble by comprehending what other people say. It's one thing to have a different opinion. It's another to not even understand the other person's opinion.

I understand the opposition's opinion. They think that marriage is a religious institution and their fictitious god hates homosexuality. However, marriage in our country is also a separate legal institution. The marriage equality movement isn't trying to get priests to marry gays; it's trying to get the state to change its un-Constitutional laws.

The legal marriage entity is completely independent of the religious marriage entity. The marriage equality movement is only addressing the legal entity.

curious2 says

Try reading the unanimous ruling written by the Iowa Supreme Court

Why didn't they allow polygamous marriage then? Why are they ok with "discrimination" against polygamists? Is it just because Polygamy hasn't become a potent political force yet?

freak80 says

Do you "discriminate" against polygamist marriage? Does "marriage equality" apply to polygamists?... Do you put *any* kind of limitation on the definition of marriage? If so, you are against "equality" (by your definition).

freak80 says

Why didn't they allow polygamous marriage then? Why are they ok with "discrimination" against polygamists? Is it just because Polygamy hasn't become a potent political force yet?

Instead of taking the time to read the court ruling, you've returned to the already-refuted-above argument about polygamy. Must I copy and paste the whole text for you? Can't you just click on a link?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20090403iowa-text.pdf

For your convenience, I have added the URL as a signature, so you can find it more easily.

freak80 says

Really? Surely you jest. There's nothing that makes a sexual relationship between a male and female fundamentally different than all other relationships?

In the eyes of the law: hell no! There may be things that make an interracial marriage fundamentally different from other marriages, but not in the eyes of the law. There certainly are things that make a marriage between an old man and a young woman way the hell different between two similar aged people, but not in the eyes of the law.

Why should the law treat one group inferior to another?

Well this thread should put to death the "social issues are just a distraction ginned up by Fox News" meme, at least on PatNet.

curious2 says

You've said repeatedly that you oppose the equal protection of the marriage laws for gay couples.

Hey curious2, have you stopped beating your wife?

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

You're clearly not engaging my arguments. You just keep arguing under the same faulty premise.

It's the very thing you accused Quigley of doing. If you can't make the distinction between an institution and "equal protection under the law" then there's no point on further discussion.

freak80 says

Why didn't they allow polygamous marriage then?

The question of polygamous marriage is independent of the question of gay marriage. Back in the 1960s, those who were against interracial marriage made two arguments. The first was that if you allowed blacks to marry whites, you might as well allow polygamy. The second was that if you allowed blacks to marry whites, it would be a slippery slope to bestiality.

Applying these two arguments against gay marriage is just as offensive and irrelevant. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal agreement and status and nothing more. The question of polygamy is one that deals with how many parties may enter the contract, not who may enter on the basis of race, religion, gender, nationality, or any other statuses protected because history has wronged minorities. As for bestiality, can you enter into a legal agreement with a giraffe? No, so it is a nonsensical argument.

But since you brought up polygamy, why the hell should that be illegal anyway? Again, my proposal that marriage shouldn’t even be a legal institution makes sense, but why shouldn’t multiple parties be able to enter a contract that two parties can? Preventing polygamy does not prevent orgies. Just ask open-marriage Newt Gingrich. Nor does the state have the right to prevent consensual orgies.

There is no legal justification for preventing polygamy. But again, this issue is independent of gay marriage.

curious2 says

For your convenience, I have added the URL as a signature, so you can find it more easily.

I did read the court ruling. Why the personal attack?

freak80 says

curious2 says

You've said repeatedly that you oppose the equal protection of the marriage laws for gay couples.

Hey curious2, have you stopped beating your wife?

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

Well, that's easy to fix.

freak80, do you object to the 14th Amendment? If so, why?

freak80, do you object to the Supreme Court ruling in Loving vs Virginia that the 14th Amendment protects the right of interracial marriage? If so, what are your objections?

freak80, do you have any legal arguments as to why the 14th Amendment does not apply to gay marriages in the exact same way the Supreme Court ruled it applies to interracial marriages? If so, what are those arguments?

There, just answer the above questions honestly and sincerely and we can avoid any Straw Man arguments and make some progress in this discussion. These are exactly the questions that opponents of gay marriage must answer to justify not extending all marriage laws to include same sex marriages.

Curious2,

What is the definion of marriage then? If it's not 1 man + 1 woman, what is it?

Marriage should be about producing kids. If you can't produce kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. What's the point.

And if you are married and you don't yield spawn in 15 years, the Government should force you get a divorce or move to France.

And furthermore Gay people should be made to watch Porky's on a loop, not that it would solve anything, but it would give them a taste of their own over bearing pompous medicine. That way, we make it through an original HBO program with out a gratuitous frivolous gay scene, if nothing else.

curious2 says

It's a shibboleth fabricated by preachers and PACs to fool parishioners into voting against equal rights, thereby stoking division and animosity, which the preachers and pols can profit from in terms of $ and power for themselves.

Is it?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

Speak for yourself....some of us have access to steroids...
Dan8267 says

There certainly are things that make a marriage between an old man and a young woman way the hell different between two similar aged people,

freak80 says

I did read the court ruling. Why the personal attack?

I don't understand how you can call providing a link to a unanimous court ruling, which affirmed a district court ruling, a "personal attack." But, you are actually starting to sound paranoid:

freak80 says

If they had their way, I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail.

Paranoia is a serious medical condition, and can be devastating. I'm usually the least likely to say someone needs medical attention, but it is something you might want to consider. Meanwhile, I will remove the URL from my signature so as not to enable further your misimpression of an "attack."

freak80 says

Is it?

Yes, your claim about "crime" is a shibboleth, or paranoia. I read your NPR link and nobody accused anyone of a crime or threatened to put anyone in jail. Businesses that make money encounter various regulations about how they will make money, for example the Methodist-owned business lost a tax exemption that it shouldn't have had anyway. Newspapers have to pay their taxes, and they are protected by the first amendment equally with religion.

freak80 says

What is the definion of marriage then? If it's not 1 man + 1 woman, what is it?

Since you don't know the definition of marriage in your own State of New York, here are links:

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/domestic-relations/DOM010_10.html

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/domestic-relations/DOM010-A_10-A.html

I hope you won't think I'm attacking you by providing links to the laws of the state where you live.

curious2 says

I don't understand how you can call providing a link to a unanimous court ruling, which affirmed a district court ruling, a "personal attack."

I was talking about this:

curious2 says

Must I copy and paste the whole text for you? Can't you just click on a link?

No, pointing out your ad hominem attack isn't paranoia. Sorry, you fail.

BTW, using the charge of mental illness as a personal attack says more about you than it does about me. And its on display for everyone to see.

@Patrick

Links to postings that are part of a thread with multiple page breaks are still not working. Example: http://patrick.net/?p=1214837#comment-851760

freak80 says

Curious2,

What is the definion of marriage then? If it's not 1 man + 1 woman, what is it?

It does not matter what the religious or social definition of marriage is. All that matters is what the legal definition is, and that, my dear, is what this debate is all about. According to 1 USC § 7

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

The whole debate revolves around 1USC § 7 violating the 14th Amendment. If that code had stated that the legal union required the two parties to be of the same race, it would be un-Constitutional as the Supreme Court ruled in Loving vs. Virginia. Well, it's just as un-Constitutional for requiring the two parties to be of opposite sex.

The requirement of two parties to be of opposite sex is further made ridiculous by the existence of hermaphrodites or intersexuals, persons with both male and female genitalia. How the hell does the one man and one woman thing apply when one or both parties are intersexuals?

And don't even get me started on robots and sentient extraterrestrial species with only one or more than two sexes. Like the law even attempts to handle that.

CaptainShuddup says

Marriage should be about producing kids. If you can't produce kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. What's the point.

As I stated to Bap33 in this thread,

Also, by your argument, a heterosexual couple in which one or both were infertile would not be legally allowed to marry. Are you really going to try to make that argument? What about the old widow and widower who meet over a game of bingo at the local church and then decide to get marry and spend their golden years together? They aren't marrying to have children and can't reproduce. Should their marriage be illegal? What about straight married couples who choose not to have children? Should they be forced by the state to get a divorce? I know many straight, married, childless by choice couples.

The state does not and has never required that married couple can or do produce children. To do so would violate even the most basic of human rights.

As for the point… The point of gay marriage is to have equal legal status including
1. Equal taxation. Why should a gay couple have to pay higher income taxes than a straight couple?
2. Equal health and life insurance benefits.
3. Hospital visitation rights.
4. Rights of attorney.
5. Spousal benefits when a member of the military dies in combat.

And hundreds of other little legal rights that straight couples take for granted but make legal arrangements difficult or impossible for gay couples. And that's a pretty damn important point.

The bottom line is that it is obvious that gay marriage should and will become legally accepted at the federal level, just as it was obvious in the 1960s that eventually interracial marriage should and would become legally accepted at the federal level.

Personally, I hope all gay couples sue the fuck out of the IRS and US Treasury for overpaid taxes and for penalties and interest for the past 100 years!

Curious,

I'm aware of the recent decision about the issue in New York State. What makes you think I'm not aware of the decision? Just because I may not agree with a law doesn't mean I'm not aware of it.

As for the implication that I must be stupid for (supposedly) not knowing about the law, I'll let other Patnet users decide whether or not that's an "ad hominem" argument.

freak80 says

What makes you think I'm not aware of the decision? ... As for the implication that I must be stupid for (supposedly) not knowing about the law,

You requested the definition, I provided links. I didn't call you stupid, you said that.

freak80 says

No, pointing our [sic] your ad hominem attack isn't paranoia.

freak80 says

I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail... enslaved.... For me, a vote for either party is a vote to slit my own throat.

Asking if I need to paste full text instead of a link is not an "attack," but you apparently believe it to be, and in the same thread you write that one major party wants you "put in jail," the other wants you "enslaved," and then you fall into violent imagery about slitting your own throat. Your reaction to marriage equality has revealed a side of your personality that I had never seen before, and which does worry me, because it sounds like the kind of thing two now-lost friends used to say before being hospitalized for clinical paranoia. Your reference to hate crimes, which you put in quotes, also worries me for a different reason:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-07/business/sns-rt-us-usa-wisconsin-shootingbre8740fp-20120805_1_white-power-music-end-apathy-sikh-temple

If you aren't paranoid, and are in fact planning something that would land you in jail for a hate crime, please stop and seek help immediately.

freak80 says

I'll let other Patnet users decide whether or not that's an "ad hominem" argument.

I don't hold not knowing all the laws against you. However, you're failure to address any of the very precise arguments I've made against all objections to marriage equality implies that you have no counter-arguments to make.

This in turn would lead anyone reading this thread to conclude that there is no legitimate reason to object to same sex marriages being recognized by the federal government and through federal law by all state governments.

But just in case you've manage to think up a counter-argument, feel free to post it now. Of course, you're free to not do so, but as the old saying goes, he who remains silent is understood to consent.

CaptainShuddup says

Marriage should be about producing kids. If you can't produce kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. What's the point.

So, to be clear, infertile people should be denied marriage rights?

Thanks for the link to the NPR article. This news article from a balanced non partisan source is pretty damning of the gay movement. When someone tells them "no" based on religious grounds, they hire lawyers and proceed to punish them with litigation fees. The first ammendment says "government shall make no law respecting religion or preventing the practice thereof. If your interpretation of the 14th ammendment would require a religious leader to set aside his/her beliefs in support of the gay agenda, guess which ammendment trumps?
This is all beside the point. The real issue here is "should gays be permitted, encouraged, and aided in their fight for societal and cultural legitimacy, even at the cost of freedom of the other 90%?"
We already give them equal rights, and perhaps marriage as defined by the state is just a contract, as Dan has pointed out. If gays just get the contract, they will be dissatisfied. They want the people who frown on their lifestyle to be smacked into "right thinking" by the government. Even the incident with Dan Cathy's excoriation smacks of "thought crime." George Orwell would recognize this in an instant. It's our rights at stake. That is worth fighting for!

CL says

CaptainShuddup says

Marriage should be about producing kids. If you can't produce kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. What's the point.

So, to be clear, infertile people should be denied marriage rights?

To be fair, the Captain said they should be sent to France after 15 years. France is a nice place. The Captain seemed to be be joking, too, unlike Quigley and freak80. The latter two seem to illustrate Bill Maher's observation about the bubble (see video above).

curious2 says

The Captain seemed to be be joking, too

Seemed like as good a place as any to interject with that salient point though. Marriage is for procreation breaks down as an argument when heteros can't procreate either, but are allowed to marry.

Logically, to ask if they can or intend to would be considered intrusive on the part of the Government. Why aren't gays afforded the same freedom?

Hey freak, consider this article while you're making your faggot jokes and trying to pretend religion is the base for all moral and intellectual activity in the US:

"GOP Insider: How Religion Destroyed My Party"

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/gop-insider-how-religion-destroyed-my-party

"In the new book, "The Party Is Over," veteran Republican Mike Lofgren writes about the rise of politicized religious fundamentalism and how the GOP devolved into anti-intellectual nuts."

Its a good read, from someone on the inside. And then maybe, you know, try to reconsider the questions you've pretended to be asking here. Good luck with your struggle.

...but honestly in your case I think the real struggle will come in about ten years or so when you start thinking "oh damn, I guess I should have… ..."

Quigley says

This is all beside the point. The real issue here is "should gays be permitted, encouraged, and aided in their fight for societal and cultural legitimacy, even at the cost of freedom of the other 90%?"

What freedom are you talking about? Freedom is a minimal set of laws, including minimal favoritism by the government. Not sure what cost of freedom there is in this discussion. If you want freedom then you should advocate government to get out of the marriage business altogether and other unfree favoritisms.

I am not voting. I have voted republican many times.

Wait, I changed my mind. I will vote democrat for the first time if it looks like Romney might win. I don't trust people with offshore bank accounts. That means you have no faith in this country and are trying to dodge taxes.

Quigley says

If your interpretation of the 14th ammendment would require a religious leader to set aside his/her beliefs in support of the gay agenda, guess which ammendment trumps?

I would argue that the 14th Amendment is more important than the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment grants rights, but the 14th Amendment says that everyone has the same rights, which is a more fundamental proposition. Equality of rights is even more than any individual right.

Nevertheless, the intention of the First Amendment is to prevent government from suppressing a religious minority and to prevent religion from controlling government. Both of these intentions are important. In regards to preventing religion from controlling the government, all objections to marriage equality are religious ones. Thus the prohibition on gay marriage is a violation of the First Amendment.

However, as Quigley states, the government is not suppose to suppress religions. Yet, it does. Remember Branch Davidian in Wacco, TX circa 1993? The government burned those people alive. Our government frequently prevent religious organization from

1. Arming themselves.
2. Having sexual relations with minors.
3. Performing human sacrifices.
4. Using illegal narcotics including marijuana.
5. Hiding faces behind a burka in many places such as airport security.
6. 90% of what's in the Bible is illegal. Ex: stoning your daughter if she has sex before marriage.

If we accept that the First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering in any way with any religion and that trumps all laws, then I have the right to open the Nudist Church of Weed, Firearms, and Peer-to-Peer File Sharing. Our first sacrament will be to tap the phones of every politician. And there's nothing the government could do about it. Yet, that's just not reality.

The First Amendment also states "Congress shall make no law bridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Yet, there are at restrictions on freedom of speech. You can't legally

1. Report a false emergency. Ex: Yelling fire in a crowed theater when there is none.
2. Make a threat of violence including death threats. Ex: Phoning in a bomb threat.
3. Make a knowingly false statement that damages a person. I.e., libel and slander.

Personally, I say these should be the only restrictions on free speech, but the government frequently includes others such as

1. Speaking your mind in court results in a contempt of court arrest.
2. Using profanity in certain places like aboard an airplane results in arrest.
3. Copyright, patent, and trademark laws.
4. Nondisclosure contracts which are written solely for the interest of one party and forced onto the other.
5. Court order silence including court orders regarding evidence.

And that's just to name a few.

And the right to peacefully assemble is not even considered a right anymore, but rather a privilege. You have to get a permit to protest. Think about what that means. You have to get the permission of government to protest government, and the government can say no and it can restrict when and were you protest. Remember Occupy Wall Street being kicked out of the parks?

The fact is there are many restrictions on the First Amendment that shouldn't be there according to the Constitution. It would be far better to explicitly list what those restrictions are so that we can limit them to just those explicit restrictions rather than letting the government constantly increase the restrictions.

In the NPR article, the only thing that happened to the ministry organization is that they lost tax exemption for the use of the pavilion. But religious organizations should not get any tax exemptions according to the First Amendment because a tax exemption is preferential treatment and thus an endorsement of that religion. And if you think that's not so because all religions get tax exemptions, name one Satanic Cult that gets tax exemption. Could a church of Satan get a tax exemption in our country? Hell no. What about my Nudist Church of Weed, Firearms, and Peer-to-Peer File Sharing?

Nevertheless, the issue of whether or not churches can refuse to perform gay marriages or refuse the use of their buildings for gay marriages is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the federal government should recognize gay marriages. Marriage equality can be achieved within our government and the legal system whether or not churches are required to not discriminate.

However, I'll address this issue now.

The question of whether or not churches can discriminate against homosexuals is exactly the same as the question of whether or not churches can discriminate against race. Can a church refuse to marry a black couple or an interracial couple? This is not an academic question. It happens all the time.

Church Votes Against Interracial Couples Becoming Members

White Baptist church in Mississippi bans black wedding

The bottom line is that yes, churches can refuse to perform marriage ceremonies on gays, blacks, and interracial couples. The churches can refuse to let women, Hispanics, Asians, cripples, or any other minority attend their masses. This is because churches are not like restaurants. They aren't commercial entities serving the community.

However, the state is then wrong to provide tax-free status to churches, and it is wrong to zone any land for churches. Religious ceremonies should be held in private residences, not zoned landed. After all, churches do not have to and do not serve the community at large like restaurants, night clubs, and bars do. Therefore, they should not get access to limited land, and certainly should not get tax exemptions. Let the faithful open their own homes to their flocks. Isn't that what Jesus would want anyway?

Remember, religious marriage is not civil marriage. The fact that you got married in a church does not grant you married status in the law. For that, you need a marriage license. Conversely, you can get married in law without getting married in any church. Civil marriage and religious marriage are completely independent of one another. Just ask any bigamist. His religious marriages aren't recognized by the state.

Quigley says

The real issue here is "should gays be permitted, encouraged, and aided in their fight for societal and cultural legitimacy, even at the cost of freedom of the other 90%?"

No, that's not the real issue. Of course gays and heterosexuals like me who support marriage equality should be permitted to advocate (or fight as you call it) for social justice, legal equality, and even social and cultural acceptance. That is our First Amendment right.

No one is proposing a law to encourage or aid in this quest. We are proposing to change the law to end discrimination and the violation of the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, whether or not you personally consider gay marriage to be culturally acceptable is irrelevant to whether or not the laws of our nation are written such that all people have the same rights. There are many people who don't find country music to be culturally acceptable, but they aren't proposing it be banned.

Finally, the legalization of same sex marriage does not cost any freedom of the other 90%. The only argument remotely stating that is the one presented in the NPR article about churches being required to perform gay or interracial or black marriages. And as I have pointed out, they don't and won't even when gay marriage is recognized under federal law.

Quigley says

We already give them equal rights, and perhaps marriage as defined by the state is just a contract, as Dan has pointed out. If gays just get the contract, they will be dissatisfied. They want the people who frown on their lifestyle to be smacked into "right thinking" by the government. Even the incident with Dan Cathy's excoriation smacks of "thought crime." George Orwell would recognize this in an instant. It's our rights at stake. That is worth fighting for!

Translation: If gays can married, it will be a slippery slope into an Orwellian nightmare where Americans are arrested for thought crime.

This is the exact same argument made against interracial marriage. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. The novel 1984 was about the removal of freedom and diversity, not the expansion of it.

curious2 says

The latter two seem to illustrate Bill Maher's observation about the bubble (see video above).

I've been saying that about the social conservatives on this site for months. So true.

curious2 says

The Captain seemed to be be joking

I think that often of social conservatives, and then I find out they are serious. I mean, how else do you explain George W. Bush, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Herman Cain?

G'Day,
You shouldn't vote if you don't like the candidates. With less than a 50% turn out, it will let 'them' know that it means...NONE OF THE ABOVE!

Regards,
Woomera

kentm says

Hey freak, consider this article while you're making your faggot jokes

Please give an example of where I did that.

kentm says

trying to pretend religion is the base for all moral and intellectual activity in the US:

Where did I invoke religion at all?

Quigley says

They want the people who frown on their lifestyle to be smacked into "right thinking" by the government. Even the incident with Dan Cathy's excoriation smacks of "thought crime." George Orwell would recognize this in an instant.

That's what it looks like, yes. I can't help but admire the sheer Machiavellian art of it all, though:

1) Re-define marriage as a "right" instead of an institution
2) Keep saying that people who support "traditional" marriage are against "gay rights" (as if anyone asks what you do at night before you can vote).
3) Use gay marriage (in states that have it) as a legal precedent to financially attack religious groups you don't like.

I give concrete examples of (3) and I'm subjected to personal attacks (like that I supposedly called someone a 'faggot').

This is what I mean when I say the far-left is just as authoritarian and unhinged as the far right.

So Kentm and Curious2, you've made my point about not voting for Democrats. If Democrats actually went after the top 0.1% (like they're supposed to do) I might support them. But what has Obama done? He hasn't done anything to reign in the power of Big Finance that owns the government. See the Matt Taibbi articles. Rather, Obama has just given the homosexual special interest groups what they want (repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell). Apparently privacy and tolerance is *not* what they want, but rather a government "stamp of approval" which they use to go after (with the force of the state) people they don't like.

So no, Patnet readers. "Social issues" are *not* just phoney issues created out of thin air by Fox News and AM radio.