We Have Been Lied to About the Gay Marriage Case
One stark illustration of Walker’s massive distortion on this broader matter is his assertion (slip op. at 9-10) that “When asked [during closing arguments] to identify the evidence at trial that supported [the] contention [that ‘responsible procreation is really at the heart of society’s interest in regulating marriage’], proponents’ counsel [Charles Cooper] replied, ‘you don’t have to have evidence of this point.’” The clear—and utterly misleading—implication that Walker tries to leave through his grossly out-of-context quotation is that the Prop 8 proponents did not offer meaningful (indeed, overwhelming) evidence and other authority on this point. And plaintiffs’ counsel Ted Olson has compounded the falsehood with irresponsible public statements like this (from his interview on “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace”):
In fact, they [Prop 8 proponents] said during the course of the trial they didn’t need to prove anything, they didn’t have any evidence, they didn’t need any evidence.
1. Let’s begin by putting Cooper’s statement in its proper context:
At the closing argument in June, Cooper began by stating that “the historical record leaves no doubt … that the central purpose of marriage in virtually all societies and at all times has been to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring stable unions to increase the likelihood that any offspring will be raised by the man and woman who brought them into the world.” (3028: 13-19.) Cooper cited numerous Supreme Court (and other) cases that reflect this understanding. (3027-3028.)
When Cooper stated that “the evidence shows overwhelmingly that … responsible procreation is really at the heart of society’s interest in regulating marriage” (3038:5-8), Walker asked, “What was the witness who offered the testimony? What was it and so forth?” (3038:14-15.) Cooper began his response:
The evidence before you shows that sociologist Kingsley Davis, in his words, has described the universal societal interest in marriage and definition as social recognition and approval of a couple engaging in sexual intercourse and marrying and rearing offspring.
Cooper then cited Blackstone’s statements—which were also in evidence submitted at the trial—that the relation of husband and wife and the “natural impulse” of man to “continue and multiply his species” are “confined and regulated” by “society’s interests”; that the “principal end and design” of marriage is the relationship of “parent and child”; and that it is “by virtue of this relation that infants are protected, maintained, and educated.” (3038-3039*.)
As Cooper proceeded to work his way through “eminent authority after eminent authority”—all in evidence submitted at the trial—Walker interrupted him to ask the bizarre question, “I don’t mean to be flip, but Blackstone didn’t testify. Kingsley Davis didn’t testify. What testimony in this case supports the proposition?” (3039:16-18.)
Cooper responded to Walker’s question:
Your Honor, these materials are before you. They are evidence before you.… But, your Honor, you don’t have to have evidence for this from these authorities. This is in the cases themselves. The cases recognize this one after another. [3039:19-3040:1]
Walker: “I don’t have to have evidence?” [3040:2]
Cooper: “You don’t have to have evidence of this point if one court after another has recognized—let me turn to the California cases on this.” [3040:3-5]
Note that only the underlined portion of the passage is what Walker quotes in his opinion.
At least Big Media set us straight, as the watchdogs over a sometimes dishonest judiciary.
Yes, that was sarcasm.
Thanks to daleyrocks.
walker’s flamboyance
ColonelHaiku (2deed7) — 8/13/2010 @ 7:49 amand arrogance will be shown
as hot wind in sails
sociologist Kingsley Davis is their “evidence” for reals?
the marriage bigots are gonna get their asses handed to them I think
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/13/2010 @ 8:06 am“sociologist Kingsley Davis is their “evidence” for reals?”
Mr. Feets – I would charitably say that is an incomplete reading of Mr. Patterico’s and Nr. Whelan’s posts. The point is court(s?) accepted Mr. Davis’ work as evidence in reaching their conclusions. Those cases were presented as precedents to the court. What was not the sole evidence presented to the court. What is your opinion of the SSM sociologigists used by the plaintiffs?
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/13/2010 @ 8:15 amwell one wrinkle i would add:
> At least Big Media set us straight, as the watchdogs over a sometimes dishonest judiciary.
Honestly, when it comes to media reporting on law, the media is just generally, non-ideologically incompetant. seriously as in they have literally no idea what is going on half the time. i chalk that up mainly to reporters who lack expertise trying to report on various subjects related to law. this is one of the ways that legally oriented blogs such as this one performs a public service.
So i wouldn’t expect the media to get it right. which is not the same as saying its okay they won’t get it right, but there you go.
if anyone from the news media are listening you need to hire some lawyers, not just to vett stories for defamation issues, but also to explain to you what the hell is going on in the courtrooms. ideally you should hire some reporters who worked as a lawyer for at least a while.
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 8/13/2010 @ 8:24 amKingsley Davis died in 1997…it sounds like Cooper cited points of law or dicta in other decisions or treatises.
Didn’t he produce any live testimony in support of marriage? I would have unloaded with both barrels, and make the whole case for marriage anew. That’s what’s needed, since popular opinion seems to have forgotten what it was for. I think Prop 8 counsel made a tactical error.
cassandrac (5a5d33) — 8/13/2010 @ 8:45 amdaleyrocks, hf will never answer your question.
Icy Texan (eee334) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:06 amIcy – I know, he is only focused on one side of the debate.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:10 amIcy – And Team R’s position instead of Team D’s unexplained position.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:11 amComment by daleyrocks — 8/13/2010 @ 8:15 am
Why on earth would you debate with happyfeet on this, or any issue. All happyfeet does is parrot back the standard talking points on any debate, on any side of the issue being debate. In happyfeet’s own off-kilter manner, of course.
Brad S (9f6740) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:20 amWhat is your opinion of the SSM sociologigists used by the plaintiffs?
His opinion is that he likes their conclusions. Apparently he doesn’t like Davis’. Who cares?
Gerald A (2b94cf) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:23 amDaley – you would “charitably say” that HF has an incomplete reading of Patterico’s post? I’m wondering why anyone bothers being charitable anymore after HF opens the discussion calling most of us “marriage bigots”.
I try very hard to understand the point of view of these people with whom I disagree so profoundly. But there is no “point of view” with someone like HF, because that would require some rationale for his position. He’s got nothing but attitude. And hateful vituperation without reason seems to capture the essence of bigot.
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:27 amI think sociologists are gay whatever side their on… this isn’t about sociology I don;t think it’s about a coalition of trailer park Christians and slum-dwelling minorities beating up on fags just cause they can.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:32 am*they’re* on I mean and *don’t* sorry… new guy sorta wandered in and he asks these new guy questions what are sorta confuzzling
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:38 am#12 – thank you for outing yourself as a bigot.
LarryD (f22286) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:41 amIt’s called “precedent”, feets, and courts usually tend to look on it favorably.
Frank Drebbin (8096f2) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:41 amI generally agree with you happyfeet, and that is patently unfair. At least include blacks, hispanics, and Mormons in the group of oppressors.
JD (3dc31c) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:41 amSeven million “trailer park Christians and slum-dwelling minorities”. Well, well. Nobody need to bother calling HF a bigot. It looks like he’s willing to denounce himself.
Try this on for size. What if it were just possible that ordinary, regular non-bigot people (including even some people who lived on nice shady streets and some who lived in mobile homes and some who lived in apartments) had the idea that suddenly changing a fundamental practice of the last umpteen thousand years of understanding marriage to be a man/woman thing might be a bad thing? Could a person possibly think that without being a bigot? Could people possibly disagree with “happyfeet” for a REASON other than hatred?
I think that “happyfeet” belies his screen name. He sounds like a very unhappy, vicious person who just tries to paste a smile on all his ugly attacks.
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:44 amit’s about a coalition of trailer park Christians and slum-dwelling minorities beating up on fags just cause they can.
Where’s Chris Hooten? He’s a better class of troll than stinkyfeet.
Subotai (e3f074) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:47 am“Try this on for size. What if it were just possible that ordinary, regular non-bigot people (including even some people who lived on nice shady streets and some who lived in mobile homes and some who lived in apartments) had the idea that suddenly changing a fundamental practice of the last umpteen thousand years of understanding marriage to be a man/woman thing might be a bad thing? Could a person possibly think that without being a bigot? Could people possibly disagree with “happyfeet” for a REASON other than hatred?”
Or try this argument: Isn’t it possible that a lot of folks can be (and likely are right now) persuaded to go against gay marriage because they see a bunch of wealthier, spoiled brats thinking they can act any disgusting way they want? And that those same spoiled brats can then demand Joe TrailerPark and Juan Barrio support their RIGHT TO MARRY, OR YOU’LL BE SORRY?
Brad S (9f6740) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:49 am_____________________________________
I think sociologists are gay
You remind me of this limousine liberal I speak to on occasion. The guy is a big fan of Obama (and other Democrats like Bill Clinton) and mocks effeminate qualities in males. I’m not sure what his POV is on same-sex marriage, but I suspect it’s very squishy in general.
He does backflips to avoid paying income taxes, encourages the idea that companies use workers who are self-employed contractors instead of employees (in order to get around from paying payroll taxes, healthcare benefits, etc). He’s also hyper about race and ethnicity, but from a pity-party, grievance-filled, pro-underdog-minority standpoint. IOW, he talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Beyond someone like that, I think most people in general — regardless of political bent — tend to be dismissive of homosexuality, particularly when it involves the behavior of males. So when “gay” is used pejoratively, as you’ve done, that merely illustrates my point about the phoniness of liberal sentiment.
Mark (411533) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:50 amI’m not remotely liberal… I think what is liberal is using the state to circumscribe the rights of a bunch of people what aren’t hurting anybody and what have as much right to be blessed with the government’s sacrament of marriage as anybody else –
When Prop 8 losers endorse using the state to privilege one class of people over another they become no different than affirmative action proggs or Title IX feminazis I think.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 10:20 am“this isn’t about sociology I don;t think”
Mr. Feets – So why not leave them out of it on both sides?
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/13/2010 @ 10:23 am“it’s about a coalition of trailer park Christians and slum-dwelling minorities”
Mr. Feets – That’s a pretty hatey statement, not at all what it’s going to take for Team R to win elections. What is Team D’s official position on this? I have still not heard you day since most of their politicians are cowards on it.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/13/2010 @ 10:27 amMr. daley I think for reals we should leave the sociologists out of it on both sides and talk about the equality and the pursuings of happiness and the we hold these truths to be self-evident.
It’s just wrong as wrong can be to say this relationship what is between these people we like is more better than that relationship between people what we think are undesirable. It’s not what nice people do. It’s not what gracious people do.
Especially cause it matters not. No people or woodland creatures there are in God’s creation what stand to be harmed by the gay marriagings.
You people need to shape up and get your do unto others thinking caps on and then we can talk about the spendings again.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 10:31 am“I think what is liberal is using the state to circumscribe the rights of a bunch of people what aren’t hurting anybody and what have as much right to be blessed with the government’s sacrament of marriage…”
Since gays never had a recognized “right” to marriage in the past, it hardly seems like Prop8 people are taking something away.
Whether marriage is a “right” that can be assigned to any designated group of people is the heart of the argument. It’s begging the question to simply assert that it is a right. In fact, your accusations of bigotry are based on the assumption that naturally EVERYONE recognizes that it’s a right – and therefore the only reason to deny it to gays would be bigotry. In that case, I’d have to agree. If voters chose to deny gays the right to bear arms, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to freedom of speech, then that would be bigotry. But then such a case could be decided on the obvious constitutional basis, without having to argue Walker’s “facts.”
Finally, quite a lot of people consider the phrase “the sacrament of marriage” to be a lot more serious than you do. They don’t think that the “sacrament of marriage” belongs to the government, and it’s not up to the government to change it. The government can protect the right of people to enter into contracts with one another – like a civil union. But the government does not have the authority to change biological reality.
Men and women marry because they are biologically suited to marry. Homosexuals, for whatever reason, opt out of that natural biological system. Fine. But in doing so it is not unreasonable or bigoted to say that we will not change the definition of marriage to accommodate the aberration.
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 8/13/2010 @ 10:40 amJD is right that is unfair of me to say… to be honest I’m a lot Pauline Kael on this issue cause even my super Catholic older friends M and K were against Prop 8 – my hispanical friends were all against it – my muslim friend was against it – my friend T’s inlaws in Orange County what are very very conservative didn’t vote for it – I don’t know actually know anyone what voted for this.
I am sorry for my previous characterization of Prop 8 proponents what is born of nothing other than my imaginings. Even if it’s probably bang on.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 10:42 amAnd who the hell are you to say that this is a matter of “people what we like” versus “people what we don’t like”?
My homosexual friends are not less my friends than anyone else. I just don’t happen to think that they can walk on the scene in 2010 and rewrite the history of human relationships!
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 8/13/2010 @ 10:43 amto be honest I’m a lot Pauline Kael on this issue cause even my super Catholic older friends M and K were against Prop 8 – my hispanical friends were all against it – my muslim friend was against it – my friend T’s inlaws in Orange County what are very very conservative didn’t vote for it
That’s funny, because all my friends what were super gay were in favor of it.
Subotai (adce06) — 8/13/2010 @ 10:48 amIt’s just wrong as wrong can be to say this relationship what is between these people we like is more better than that relationship between people what we think are undesirable
Is it wrong to say that people who express themselves like malicious stoned teenagers are probably not worth listening to?
Subotai (adce06) — 8/13/2010 @ 10:51 amSince gays never had a recognized “right” to marriage in the past, it hardly seems like Prop8 people are taking something away.
that’s exactly what happened though – gays were all marrying it up and then Prop 8 shut it down
people consider the phrase “the sacrament of marriage” to be a lot more serious than you do.
Bosh. I take it plenty serious. Plus God blesses sprinkler systems he can bless a gay marriage I think. For reals – at my little church in Texas when we got a new sprinkler system we all met on the lawn after service and the pastor blessed it. It was the darnedest thing.
So my feel is whatever you think of gay marriagings or civil unions or whatever they are there in the world… and they can be done to the glory of god every but as much as that little sprinkler system can sprinkle to the glory of God. To disallow this possibility is to deny the transformative goodness of Mr. Jesus I think.
Men and women marry because they are biologically suited to marry.
I don’t know what to say to that it’s unsupported and arbitrary.
And who the hell are you to say that this is a matter of “people what we like” versus “people what we don’t like”?
Call it a hunch.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 10:55 am“It’s just wrong as wrong can be to say this relationship what is between these people we like is more better than that relationship between people what we think are undesirable.”
Mr. Feets – I have no problem leaving sociologists out of it and since I have not been calling people bigots or trailer trash or pointing other fingers, my squeaky clean conscience is still squeaky clean even though I have not yet showered today, which I will now do and grab a tasty cold beverage.
brb
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/13/2010 @ 10:58 amevery *bit* as much as I mean
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 10:59 amokay I have a thing at 11 I hope it doesn’t take long
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 11:02 amHappyfeet has a hunch? Who knew? It’s sad that sometimes a deformity like that can make people bitter. They get the idea that everyone is staring at them, and pretty soon they think everyone else is a bigot.
Be comforted, happyfeet. Most people are NOT looking at your hunch, and don’t care about it if they are. Most people do not dislike you… because they don’t know you like we know you.
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 8/13/2010 @ 11:05 ammy friend T’s inlaws in Orange County what are very very conservative didn’t vote for it
Not sure if I’d trust your characterization of people or situations. When people lean left — certainly in general but over certain issues in particular — I tend to be wary of their accuracy, if not honesty.
A variation of that applies to myself, too, but coming from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Through the years I’ve observed somewhat androgynous males or females — or seemingly stereotypical gay people — and my first reaction is to assume they’re homosexual. So I’ve been quite amused on the many occasions when the somewhat effeminate male starts talking about his girlfriend or wife, or when the somewhat masculinized female starts talking about her boyfriend or husband.
Beyond that, there’s a guy in my workplace who originally was a fairly typical family guy with a wife and kids. Today he apparently favors a mostly homosexual lifestyle, which I avoid going into details about. But it still baffles me when this person can be behaving in one way on one hand, and then, on the other hand, introducing his fully-grown kids to us at work and also talking about his ex-wife in a very easygoing manner.
Again, my cynicism towards the gay agenda has increased over the years, and is now nearing the pinnacle. And it’s why I think the acronym of “GLBT” — which distracts from the matter of free choice, free will — would be more accurate as “BT.”
Mark (411533) — 8/13/2010 @ 11:10 amVaughn Walker is even worse than Tena Callahan or Joseph Battailon.
Anyway, civil unions reframed the debate.
When Baker v. Nelson was first heard in the Minnesota district court, the only method of getting the legal incidents of marriage was entering a marriage. But when civil unions were invented, it effectively “divorced” the issue of the definition of marriage from the issue of whether or not the incidents of marriage should be available to other forms of partnerships. Indeed, several state constitutions (Virginia, Louisiana, Florida) forbid the legal incidents of marriage from being offered to other forms of partnerships, even under a different name.
The ruling in Perry proposes a new constitutional paradigm, one which holds that a definition per se could be a violation of equal protection, on the basis that it denies social meaning and cultural meaning.
How does this apply to polygamous unions? There are reasons, such as legal difficulties, which would justify the state denying some of the legal incidents of monogamous marriages to plural marriages.
So what reason is there, under the reasoning outlined in the Perryruling, to deny marriage licenses to plural marriages, even if they are just feel-good licenses with the same legal force as adoption certificates that came with Cabbage Patch Kid dolls? After all, they are being denied social meaning and cultural meaning.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 8/13/2010 @ 11:22 amOK squeaky clean tasty beverage no extra dilly dally dirty parts play time ready.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/13/2010 @ 11:23 amIn 2008, there was a house in Long Beach that had a McCain/Palin sign and a No on 8 sign.
Dick Cheney supports same-sex marriage.
Rush Limbaigh supports civil unions.
Conservatives are not as hostile to the gay cause as one would think.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 8/13/2010 @ 11:23 amI’m still on phone but is going very well – I don’t really see this as a gay cause thing Mr. Ejercito unless the cause is hey let’s be fair-minded and then at the reception we can engage our newlywed friends in a boisterous discussion of the spendings
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 11:30 amGod, you don’t get it man, it’s a truth thing, from the made up apocalypse that the DWE was going to be,
ian cormac (ab2f02) — 8/13/2010 @ 11:38 amto falsifying the reports of the experts, to denying
the testimony of those involved in the SSM debate
__________________________________
Dick Cheney supports same-sex marriage.
What is the opposite of even a broken clock telling the correct time twice a day?
Yep, there are some conservatives who are similar to Cheney, etc, just as there are some liberals who dislike the idea of SSM—I’m thinking in particular of various voters in all the 31 US states where the issue of gay marriage has been on the ballot and rejected.
And of the 10-or-so percent of self-described gays who are not liberal, some of them may be truly centrist to even rightist, at least on election day (although I’d imagine they’re a fraction of a fraction).
But it’s mostly liberal sentiment — in leftists, natch, and others too — that often leads to an illustration of the phrase that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Same-sex marriage is going to do to the boundaries and standards of society what feel-good, pro-self-esteem public schools have done to academics. IOW, if things are dumbed down enough today, wait until what things will be like in the future.
Mark (411533) — 8/13/2010 @ 11:43 am“Plus God blesses sprinkler systems he can bless a gay marriage I think.”
Mr. Feets – One of my favorites is when God blesses a fishing fleet. Almost brings me to tears every time think of those brave net wranglers on the high seas selflessly fighting all odds to safely bring home tasty Patagonian Toothfish for our cozy dinners with or without gay marriagings.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/13/2010 @ 11:44 amour God is a lot an awesome God my brother
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 11:51 amWow, hf on theology. I think Daley had the right idea. I feel like I need a shower now too.
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 8/13/2010 @ 12:17 pmLevi Johnston on the Palin family, “I think they kinda kicked me out now. For permanently.”
I don’t know. Does that kind of dialogue sound familiar?
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 8/13/2010 @ 12:19 pmCompletely OT… the news here in Michigan is all about the guy from Flint who has stabbed 20 people – killing 5. It’s a white guy who has stabbed mostly black men. They even started calling it terrorism, and that fit because it certainly was terrorizing the community.
Now the guy’s been caught and they keep repeating that he’s a citizen of Israel. But once his Arab identity comes out, who wants to place bets on how quickly the word “terrorism” disappears?
Elias Abuelazam sounds very eager to return to Michigan and face trial. We’ll be very interested to hear what he gives as a reason for such a cruel and bizarre spree. Do you suppose he was a tea partier upset about the health care bill?
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 8/13/2010 @ 12:25 pmUpdate on OT: AFP says that unconfirmed reports say Abuelazam is a “Christian Arab Israeli”. What in the world was going on in his head?
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 8/13/2010 @ 12:29 pmthis isn’t about sociology
I notice you say that AFTER people challenged you on what you think about the plaintiff’s sociologists. I think you make things up as you go.
For most it’s about the Bible. You don’t believe the Bible – that’s your right. Your characterization of the “real” motives of the Prop 8 proponents is the same as Democrats calling Tea Partiers racists. Absolutely identical.
I notice that you have nothing to say about the legal soundness of the decision or how the judge reached his findings of “fact”, one of which was characterizing people who voted for Prop 8, as if he has any business doing such a thing. You favor the decision because you like the outcome. Another way you’re identical to Democrats. You probably liked him characterizing the majority of voters in his decision as well – an unbelievable display of arrogance.
Unbelievable.
Gerald A (2b94cf) — 8/13/2010 @ 12:34 pmbtw, you can read their emergency motion for a stay, here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/243684
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 8/13/2010 @ 12:45 pmfor reals I don’t think this particular point of contention that this Ed Whelan person has with Walker’s ruling is all that big a deal if you don’t dishonestly take Mr. Walker’s sentence out of context like Ed Whelan does….
I think it’s pretty clear what Mr. Judge Walker is saying is that the Prop 8 people failed to show that gay marriage would have “harmful consequences” and that while they had a lot of blah blah blah from other cases about marriage and procreation, they never adduced any evidence what connected the dots between gay marriage and harms what would result.
So we just have a misunderstanding here and I don’t think we’ve been lied to and if anyone is being misleady it’s the less-than-honest Ed “snip snip” Whelan.
look at what Mr. Olson says in context…
That’s not an “irresponsible pubic statement” goofy Mr. Whelan that’s an accurate description of the proceedings. The Prop 8 losers said they would prove harms and they failed. They don’t look to have made much of an effort, really. I bolded that one part cause I think it’s a clue that the harms are on Mr. Olson’s mind there. Judge Walker and Mr. Olson seem to think this failing to show harms business is very significant.
Maybe cause it kinda is?
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 12:52 pm“WE HAVE BEEN LIED TO ABOUT” insert story-of-the-day.
The amazing disappearance of the gulf oil spill is one example.
Travis Monitor (9e3371) — 8/13/2010 @ 12:55 pm_______________________________________
For most it’s about the Bible.
Actually, I think evoking Scripture or religion in general as a reason for opposing same-sex marriage almost minimizes just how intrinsic is the disquiet about homosexuality. I think there is an innate disapproval of such behavior for the same reason there is an innate unhappiness about — at least among those who aren’t into open marriages and polygamy — one spouse fooling around behind the back of the other spouse.
The famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato, akin to a modern-day university intellectual or member of the jet-set, hip intelligentsia, showed a bit of that innate disdain of homosexuality. IOW, even though he was a libertine about it — at least originally — he also apparently was schizoid about it. That’s in spite of his not being a Christian, not being raised a Christian, and his society, ancient Greece, not being a Judeo-Christian one:
Mark (411533) — 8/13/2010 @ 12:59 pmGerald the Bible says dick all about the gay marriage. Especially the New Testament which is the one starring Jesus, who is THE guy what they named Christianity after and if he had a problem with the gay marriage he really dropped the ball I think.
But no I don’t like this ruling – I think it’s a shame the Prop 8 people forced this back into the courts with their silly Constitutional amendment. Gay marriage had already passed the Assembly (that’s what California people call the legislature) and it’s trending towards an unequivocal win in any future referendum. It would have been nice to wait til then I think as opposed to having this sort of distraction in an election year.
Gerald here is a clue for you to have for your very own: all propositions what pass in California end up in court. It’s like a truism or something.
The process isn’t failing per se this is the way California governs itself. Yeah it’s very gay, but they seem to like it.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:02 pmI think it’s pretty clear what Mr. Judge Walker is saying is that the Prop 8 people failed to show that gay marriage would have “harmful consequences” and that while they had a lot of blah blah blah from other cases about marriage and procreation, they never adduced any evidence what connected the dots between gay marriage and harms what would result.
It is the evidence about the state having an interest in the connection between marriage and procreation that Walker implied the defense had no evidence for. You’re just changing the question they were responding to, in essence trying to further the judge’s deception.
Gerald A (2b94cf) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:06 pmThe openly homosexual Judge Walker probably earnestly believes that, but in so doing he repeatedly IGNORED the evidence that was presented to him, treated prior trial and case law as ‘not evidence’, at odds with standard court practice, and in his ruling went out of his way to dismiss defendent testimony and their witnesses as neither valid nor relevant. The above example of how Walker distorted what was being said and claimed is the tip of the iceberg.
Judge Walker gave a bad ruling because he sustituted his own personal view of ‘rational’ for 7 million other folks. The rational basis of marriage in law as a necessary protection for the children of man-woman relationships, and the need for traditional marriage is built on the fact that such families are the best environment for raising children. It can be argued, but there is data to back up these viewpoints and it is certainly invalid, wrong, biased, etc. to argue those arguments dont exist. They do, they were presented in court, and the kangaroo court judge simply ignored it.
BTW, for those who hate on the God people for adhering to tradition and moral beliefs: pro-gay-marriage/anti-religion bigots who are hateful towards tradition and religious folks need to stop their hating and vilification and look in the mirror for a picture of who makes politics divisive and ugly.
Travis Monitor (9e3371) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:07 pmActually Paul of Tarsus had more than a little to say about affiliated matters, Corinthians, Romans,
ian cormac (2e065c) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:10 pmhf has to be the worst troll on Patterico 🙁 that’s sad now
Lord Nazh (0d312a) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:11 pmI think it’s pretty clear what Mr. Judge Walker is saying is that the Prop 8 people failed to show that gay marriage would have “harmful consequences”
It is none of Walkers business whether gay marriage has “harmful consequences” or not.
Subotai (34b9a5) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:11 pmthis is the way California governs itself.
Right. There is a democratic facade but when the chips are down the mask comes off and everyone is reminded of who is really in charge.
Why, we could export this marvelous system of fake-self-government around the world!
Subotai (34b9a5) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:14 pmI’m sure if they legalize cannibalism, feets will just be saying, what’ the big deal, protein is protein
ian cormac (2e065c) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:17 pmIn reading the “emergency order for a stay” that the “local government” of San Francisco was given intravener status, but not the “local government” of the Imperial Valley. Seems to me to show bias on the part of Judge Walker.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:17 pmAnd California has no rational basis for continuing this discrimination
What part of the Constitution says that California needs a “rational basis” to do anything?
And what part of the Constitution says that government bureaucrats (which is what judges are) possess any special insight into rationality?
Subotai (34b9a5) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:18 pmGerald the thesis statement of the paragraph in question is as follows:
Despite this response, proponents in their trial brief promised to “demonstrate that redefining marriage to encompass same-sex relationships” would effect some twenty-three specific harmful consequences.
Walker is pointing out that the Prop 8ers wanted to talk about the state’s “interest in procreation” instead of harms – and that they didn’t have any testimony to offer. He could be more clear I think but what he wants to say is that the harms question was not proven by the Prop 8 people at court, and that they made no effort to do so.
Note that this wouldn’t be an issue if the Prop 8 people had brought a single witness to talk about what harms would be caused by gay marriage or otherwise introduced any testimony to that effect.
So the gist of what Mr. Walker and our friend Mr. Olson is saying is true – the Prop 8 people can’t show that gay marriage would result in any specifical harms and they didn’t much try.
Whether that’s important legally – the showing of harmful consequences – I don’t know, but let’s not pretend anyone’s willfully distorting anything when in context they seem to be making exactly the point that they mean to be making.
The Prop 8 people had no evidence about harms. None. If they did, where is it?
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:18 pmThe Prop 8 people had no evidence about harms
The Prop 8 people don’t need any evidence of “harms”, smellyfeet.
Subotai (34b9a5) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:20 pmScalia was so prescient in Lawrence, it was painful,
ian cormac (2e065c) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:21 pmpolygamy will be next on the docket
then why did the Prop 8ers say that they would show harms?
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:21 pm“Plus God blesses sprinkler systems he can bless a gay marriage”
Personally, I have never witnessed sprinkler systems celebrating holy matrimony. Perhaps I should write Miss Manners to inquire about the appropriate wedding gift should the occasion arise.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:22 pmthe Prop 8 losers said that gay marriage would cause 23 – not 25 or 18 – 23 specific Very Bad Things…
aren’t you even a little curious?
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:23 pmmaybe the sprinkler system married the youth group bus – that got blessed too – my mom used to call it “that blessed bus” cause of it took up so much parking
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:24 pmStinkyfoot, I’d ask you if you know what a non sequitur is, if I didn’t know it would be a waste of time.
Instead, let me ask you to reach deep into your vast storehouse of legal knowledge and answer a simple question: What part of the US Constitution requires a “rational basis” for anything?
Subotai (34b9a5) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:25 pmI have no idear Mr. Subotai which makes the question of why the Prop 8ers said they would show harms even more interestinger.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:27 pm“maybe the sprinkler system married the youth group bus”
Mr. Feets – What kind of chirren did they have? Isn’t it all about the chirren?
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:31 pmI have no idear Mr. Subotai
You were blabbering on about “rational basis” just a few comments ago. Now you tell me that you don’t have an “idear” what it is all about.
Subotai (34b9a5) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:31 pmI never said anything about rational basis.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:35 pmoh – that was just part of Walker’s opinion I quoted but I didn’t speak to that part you’d have to ask him
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:36 pmTruly, a post-modernist version of the 14th. It’s not about actual real physical harms, but culturally constructed warm fuzzies and branding. It would be shocking for SCOTUS to affirm this way of thinking, it would vastly expand and distort the meaning of equal protection.
Travis Monitor (9e3371) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:36 pmactually that was part of what Mr. Olson said on Fox News
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:37 pmred and yellow black and white they are precious in His sight Brother Daley
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:38 pmTravis:
Whether you like it or hate it, I’m not so sure that logic is “new”. To borrow your phrases, “warm fuzzies” and “branding” played an instrumental role in Brown v. Board of Education. The court there noted that even if you made black schools “equal” in every material aspect, keeping them separate still creates the impression of inferiority and being “less than” among black students.
Kman (d25c82) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:40 pm“red and yellow black and white they are precious in His sight Brother Daley”
aluminum, copper, stainless and brass as well.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:40 pmYou quoted Olsen saying this:
This is an overwhelming record that supports the fact that individuals are being hurt, and it helps no one in California. And California has no rational basis for continuing this discrimination.
And then you endorsed it:
That’s not an “irresponsible pubic statement” goofy Mr. Whelan that’s an accurate description of the proceedings.
So I sort of assumed that you understood what you were saying. I sort of assumed that, passive-aggressive little bitch though you be, you actually had some substance behind the smokescreen.
Amazingly enough, I’ve actually been overestimating your intelligence. I did not think that was possible.
Subotai (34b9a5) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:41 pmComment by happyfeet — 8/13/2010 @ 1:02 pm
Without repeating your vulgar use of language, you’re right the Bible doesn’t say anything about gay marriage. I don’t know why Jesus would have spoken about gay marriage – was it some kind of common practice back then? Heck he never said anything about embezzlement either. The bible does say something about homosexuality. If marriage is ordained by God and He regards homosexuality as an abomination, then it follows pretty directly that He doesn’t approve of gay marriage. Both old and new testaments speak against homosexuality.
The Old Testament is God’s word as well as the new. Jesus who you like bringing up often quoted the Old Testament. In fact, HE AUTHORED IT. If you keep bringing up Jesus and rejecting the Old Testament then you have some kind of cognitive dissonance.
Jesus quoted the Old Testament there, as he does frequently throughout the gospels. By the way Mr. Jesus believer, do you see any way to get gay marriage out of that quote? Or do you claim that since there’s no explicit gay marriage prohibition in there that must be including gay marriage, especially since your pastor blessed a sprinkler system?
Here’s something from the New Testament:
Some try to claim that isn’t really about homosexuality but something else, but this gives a good argument that it is:
http://christianteens.about.com/od/whatthebiblesaysabout/a/wbsaHomosexual.htm
I know you don’t like the ruling, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct. It’s a classic of judicial activism and abuse of power. That’s why Patterico is angry about it, and he voted against Prop 8. He can logically seperate the two, which you seemingly can’t. Stop trying to defend deceptive arguments Walker made and other things he had no business doing.
Gerald A (2b94cf) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:42 pmIt’s a classic of judicial activism and abuse of power.
I agree… I’m just saying that the Prop 8 people knew full well before this prop was even on the ballot that if it succeeded they were going to court.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:46 pmMr. Gerald it sounds like the number of people what stand to inherit the kingdom of God could meet at Denny’s for tasty pancakes no whip… I’m just a little Lutheran pikachu… it’s a by grace alone thing with us… and that’s not Mr. Jesus talking anyway in your quote it’s some dude named Paul what they maybe considered but in the end did NOT name Christianity after
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:52 pmI know you don’t like the ruling, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct.
What I meant of course was you don’t like Prop 8.
the Prop 8 people knew full well before this prop was even on the ballot that if it succeeded they were going to court.
And your point is what? Don’t analyze the decision?
Gerald A (2b94cf) — 8/13/2010 @ 1:53 pmYou quoted Olsen saying this:
Subotai I only quoted Olson to contextualize the snippet Ed “snip snip” Whelan snipped.
actually I quoted him saying this:
Olson is saying this in the context of telling Fox News that he feels like the trial court has created a record that this Kennedy person will find persuasive. There’s nothing irresponsible about it… contrary to what Mr. Olson says. He’s saying that the harms are all on the side of the people he thinks are being discriminated against, and that the harms what the Prop 8 monkeys promised to show are not in evidence.
The rational basis thing is just extra I don’t think it has any bearing on the question of whether Mr. Olson was trying to be deliberately misleading about what was presented at court.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 2:02 pmGerald you are right I do not like Prop 8 I also didn’t like Prop 22, which, I met the Prop 22 people when I first moved here… for some reason we had to go to this place what was in the mini-mall right next to the Prop 22 headquarters so I walked in and got a pamphlet and I was gonna ask questions but the only one there was some glassy-eyed girl what looked like she was in high school so I just said can I take this? And she nodded. So that is the story of when I met the Prop 22 people.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 2:05 pmkeeping them separate still creates the impression of inferiority and being “less than” among black students.
Which illustrates how we’ve gone from the extreme of the past — which was tilted heavily to the right — to the extreme of today, which is foolishly, excessively liberal. That’s why I think to have been a “progressive” in the context of over 50 to 60 years ago is one thing. To be a true-blue liberal — no less than an Obama-cheering one — in the context of today is a totally different matter.
That’s why I snicker when I hear certain people in the media, or people in general, claiming the Republican Party in today’s era has become too rightwing. That the Tea-Party faction is making it too dogmatic. Yea, uh-huh. And such a conclusion being voiced within the frame of reference of 21st-century America means one has to be an ultra-liberal — a leftist galore — to buy into that.
Mark (411533) — 8/13/2010 @ 2:14 pmYes there was a time, about 60 years ago, when the Times under Kyle Palmer was as dogmatically right
ian cormac (2e065c) — 8/13/2010 @ 2:23 pmas it leans left today, we not only the swing but
we also the ‘swung’ Monty Python reference there
Gerald the Bible says dick all about the gay marriage. Especially the New Testament which is the one starring Jesus, who is THE guy what they named Christianity after and if he had a problem with the gay marriage he really dropped the ball I think.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/13/2010 @ 1:02 pm
THE LAW GIVEN BY GOD
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Genesis 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (biblically means to have sex)
If homosexuality is an abomination, then GOD does not, will not, and cannot condone or approve of homosexual marriage. Hmmmmmm, I wonder what happened to the exceedingly wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? Remember the three “men” or “angels” that appeared to Abraham just before only two of them continue on to visit with Lot.
Ever wonder who that third being was? Try this on for size, IT WAS JESUS HIMSELF that sent the two angels on after Abraham argued about saving the cities of the plains.
Genesis 18:17 And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
18:18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
JESUS COMMENTING ON THE LAW THAT HE GAVE TO MOSES
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Seems that JESUS did comment on gay marriage after all doesn’t it. Mr. Feets seems to just have a feely touchy sort of thingy christiany line, and not actually what the Bible actually teaches.
peedoffamerican (e86084) — 8/13/2010 @ 2:57 pmseems kind of reaching to me really I think if Mr. Jesus had wanted to he would have been a lot more clearer… and he still doesn’t say why he wants people to be so neurotic about the homos to where he thinks everyone should have to get up early and go vote on making them second class citizens.
He should have said and yay though we walk through the valley of the San Fernando we shalt not fear being accosted by the matrimonious homos for these ones are displeasing in the sight of the Lord and verily thou shalt have a plebiscite.
But he didn’t say that, did he?
Nopers.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 3:05 pmHe did say to love the sinner,(the person) but not the sin (the act) clearly he wasn’t too thrilled with the idea, although I doubt in the 1st century
ian cormac (2e065c) — 8/13/2010 @ 3:10 pmthat such a notion as gay marriage would have come up
More clearer than JESUS who gave the LAW calling it an abomination worthy of death, and then saying that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the LAW till heaven and earth have passed away?
Feet, you definately need to take a reading comprehension course at the earliest opportunity and also learn some serious reasonig skills.
peedoffamerican (e86084) — 8/13/2010 @ 3:10 pmI just don’t think Jesus gave that law number one it doesn’t sound like him at all number two Sodom and Gomorrah didn’t have gay marriage maybe that was part of the problem did you ever think of that?
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 3:13 pmhe wants people to be so neurotic about the homo
No more neurotic than your repeatedly using “gay” in a pejorative manner in a few of your recent postings. But that’s merely a variation of, as one example, Franklin D Roosevelt back in the 1930s scolding the wealthy for not wanting to pay more taxes to the IRS. Then — surprise, surprise — a scrutiny of FDR’s own tax returns decades later revealing he had done back flips to claim his personal tax rate should be lower.
Mark (411533) — 8/13/2010 @ 3:18 pmNo, they had other practices hence the name of the town in question, and I don’t mean Gomorrah
ian cormac (2e065c) — 8/13/2010 @ 3:18 pmWho do you think JESUS is? HE is the ALPHA and the OMEGA, the beginning and the end. He is the WORD of GOD, HE is GOD.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
peedoffamerican (e86084) — 8/13/2010 @ 3:18 pm1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
1:3 All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.
1:4 In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.
1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
I think this is one of those agree to disagree things.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 3:25 pmseems kind of reaching to me really I think if Mr. Jesus had wanted to he would have been a lot more clearer
I don’t even think you believe what you’re saying makes any sense. We’ve already been over this. Why would he have to specify every single thing that’s against God’s law? That is totally fatuous. He quoted profusely from the Old Testament, which says homosexuality is an abomination. He quoted from 24 different Old Testament books. It’s clear from his use of the OT that he meant us to understand what Christians claim about it, that it’s the word of God. For example:
Meaning Jesus was saying that the Holy Spirit was speaking through David when he wrote Psalm 110.
As I say if you want to reject the OT and also claim to believe that we should follow Jesus, you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. Of course you may just be using (actually twisting) Jesus when you think it’s advantageous and not really care about him which is likely the case.
Gerald A (2b94cf) — 8/13/2010 @ 3:30 pmNO, you are wrong, period.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Even Doubting Thomas ackowkledges who HE is. And CHRIST confirms it.
John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
JESUS is either GOD, or he is a raving lunatic. There is no middle ground. He cannot be just a wise man, but claim to be GOD. HE is either GOD INCARNATE or crazy.
JESUS asks one simple and question, and each person’s eternal fate rests on that answer.
Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
peedoffamerican (e86084) — 8/13/2010 @ 3:38 pmthat’s too decodey… for reals I think he would have been a little more clear if he really really wanted us to treat a substantial number of our kids and brothers and sisters and friends and neighbors like abominations… that’s just a.) tacky and b.) not very wwjd.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 3:38 pmthat’s too decodey
What does that mean? What are you referring to?
Gerald A (2b94cf) — 8/13/2010 @ 3:47 pmWhy am I even asking you to explain? You’re just rambling/BSing.
Gerald A (2b94cf) — 8/13/2010 @ 3:48 pmMatthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
I tell you what JESUS (YESHUA HAMASHIACH) will do. HE will come again, HE will judge the world, and HE will cast those who reject HIM into Gehenna, the lake of fire.
I suggest being very careful with the cavalier way you have of treating JESUS and what HE would and will do, and what HE stands for. HE gives a warning.
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
peedoffamerican (e86084) — 8/13/2010 @ 3:59 pmI’m saying if Jesus doesn’t speak to the issue of gay marriage you probably shouldn’t read between the lines.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 4:06 pmMy blood pressure is better as well as my time management when I just ignore hf. Lord Nazh made himself known to utter the definitive description. Gesundheit mention LJ and the “P” word, something I don’t plan to do.
So…if hf posted anything of substance can someone repeat it in a logical form for those of us listening to our doctor’s (or Patterico’s) advice to avoid unnecessary and uncivil argument?
Gesundheit- I think this is the way they want it- if they can redefine marriage to be some kind of relationship between any two consenting adults, then they can redefine bigot to mean anyone who disagrees with them. Not sure what they will redefine next.
Where can one get reliable news, anyway (barring institution of my idea to have every reporter undergo cross-exam by Patterico and Jack Bauer, in whatever order they like, before the story is published)?
MD in Philly (5a98ff) — 8/13/2010 @ 4:08 pmgraph for to click
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 4:14 pmColonel say to hell with judges and liberal lawyers (and you too, Teddy Olson!). Colonel will soon open two new businesses:
1) “Charles Darwin Climbing Center” equipped with rock wall and concrete floor
2) “Lord of the Flies Child Care”
let chips fall where may…
ColonelHaiku (2deed7) — 8/13/2010 @ 4:23 pm_________________________________
I favor Plato’s take on the issue because he was ancient Greece’s version of today’s big-city, ivory-tower intellectuals. Most tellingly, his original comments about homosexuals and their opponents remind me of the way that, say, Obama talked about small towns and small-town people being bitter and clinging to their guns.
But Plato apparently changed his tune as he grew older—and I’d say wiser. All without the assistance of Christianity or bully-pulpit preachers.
Mark (411533) — 8/13/2010 @ 4:24 pmIn comment 26, the egregious Mr. feets claims that no one he knows, even those who are “super Catholic”, Hispanic, Muslim, or “very very conservative”, voted for Proposition 8. Of course he can’t possibly know that: it’s a secret ballot. All he can know is that none of them were willing to tell him that they voted for Proposition 8. I imagine his friends and acquaintances have been whispering something like this to each other: “For God’s sake, if you voted for Proposition 8, don’t tell [whatever happyfeets’ real name is]! He’ll call you a bigot and bore you to tears with inane arguments that will literally never stop. Just nod and smile and pretend you voted against it, if you value your sanity.”
Dr. Weevil (1e7ac3) — 8/13/2010 @ 4:26 pmI’m saying if Jesus doesn’t speak to the issue of gay marriage you probably shouldn’t read between the lines.
Comment by happyfeet — 8/13/2010 @ 4:06 pm
Since JESUS is GOD, HE does speak concerning gay marriage. Since homosexuality is an abomination, HE cannot very well condone a practice (gay marriage) that would involve the practice of homosexuality that is condemned.
Please get some reasoning skills at your earliest opportunity. YOU definitely need to acquire them ASAP.
peedoffamerican (e86084) — 8/13/2010 @ 4:28 pmDr. Weevil: there’s something to what you say: it’s possible people voted for Prop 8. and aren’t willing to say so.
But there’s also something to be said with respect to people’s tendency to surround themselves with like-minded individuals, something I think is heightened on this and other cultural issues.
I mean: virtually nobody in my social circle voted for Proposition 8 (I live in a county where support for it was a decidedly minority proposition); but that’s not surprising … they’re part of my social circle, which is to some degree selected for people who would agree with my husband and me that we are married.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/13/2010 @ 4:35 pm“For God’s sake, if you voted for Proposition 8, don’t tell [whatever happyfeets’ real name is]!
That would be even more the case if they’re not totally sure of his sexual preferences or perhaps suspect he’s bisexual. BTW, that word actually is more accurate than “gay,” because most gays apparently are bisexual more than they are strictly homosexual. A case in point:
Mark (411533) — 8/13/2010 @ 4:44 pmHappy
> Gerald the Bible says dick all about the gay marriage
What are you talking about? It says pretty clearly don’t have gay sex. Don’t have gay marriage is pretty obviously implied.
I mean feel free to explain it away, or whatever. But don’t pretend it doesn’t say what it says.
I would add that every time Jesus spoke against adultery, he was talking about gay sex too. Technically adultery is ANY sex outside the context of marriage, even if straight. Since same sex marriage didn’t exist all gay sex was adultery.
That’s the problem with liberals, always reading things into our documents that just aren’t there.
> I think it’s a shame the Prop 8 people forced this back into the courts with their silly Constitutional amendment.
They didn’t start this. The proponents of gay marriage did when they convinced the California Supreme Court to change their constitution.
> aren’t you even a little curious?
Then look it up on scribd.
Ian
> polygamy will be next on the docket
I have to disagree. There is no way in hell they will legalize polygamy, beastiality, or incest (not even if there is no danger of “mutant children”).
But that itself is an indictment, because if they were principled it WOULD lead to all of that. If you take morality out as a basis of law, then that is what it leads to. This is why I have said that what this represents is NOT a repudiation of morality in the law, but a repudiation of our morality and substitution of our morality with theirs as a basis of law.
Peed
I would say that the Sodom story is more about rape than anything else. Imho.
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (f97997) — 8/13/2010 @ 4:47 pmthis is like the least fun thread ever
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 4:57 pmPeed
I would say that the Sodom story is more about rape than anything else. Imho.
Comment by Aaron Worthing (A.W.) — 8/13/2010 @ 4:47 pm
Not quite AW. Remember, Lot offerred his daughter to the men outside of his house to have sex with, but they said NO, “Send out the ‘men’ so that we may know them (have sex with).
peedoffamerican (e86084) — 8/13/2010 @ 4:59 pmmaybe his daughter wasn’t the most attractive person
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 5:01 pmlike what happened with Cher
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 5:01 pmwhat happen with Cher?
ColonelHaiku (2deed7) — 8/13/2010 @ 5:03 pmhusband Greg Allman fall face down
in his spaghetti?
Colonel proud to vote
ColonelHaiku (2deed7) — 8/13/2010 @ 5:05 pmfor Prop. 8 and happyfrum
can kiss my fat ass
I’m just saying I could see someone standing outside Cher’s house being like ok so what else you got
happyfeet (71f55e) — 8/13/2010 @ 5:06 pmhappyfrum not get
ColonelHaiku (2deed7) — 8/13/2010 @ 5:10 pmclose to Cher house due to
botox injections
Colonel think we lied
ColonelHaiku (2deed7) — 8/13/2010 @ 5:13 pmto about whole buncha sh*t
that right… I said it
MD, I havn’t commented much on here in a very long time; I read all of them and like to follow along in the give-and-takes of the discussions that I am not qualified to jump into (usually).
Feets bullshit just got to the point that I would rather see AF on here again and have to wade through his tripe.
Hope you’re doing well 🙂
Lord Nazh (0d312a) — 8/13/2010 @ 5:23 pmAW: What would be the argument against polygamy? Or any other marriage if the defendents claim to be ‘2nd class’ citizens due their rights?
Lord Nazh (0d312a) — 8/13/2010 @ 5:29 pmPlato then grab his
ColonelHaiku (2deed7) — 8/13/2010 @ 5:35 pmtutu, light loafers and head
to Club RumpRanger
Oh good grief. I left this thread to run to the hospital for an emergency. And when I come back I see that happyfeet is a LUTHERAN???
I think I’ll get a tall glass of scotch.
First of all, to defend my confreres, there’s lutheran and then there’s Lutheran. hf is of the bible-is-an-interesting-old-book kind of lutheran. You know, the one that recently voted to go with gay marriages and gay clergy just as a tornado touched down outside?
His grasp of theology is like his grasp of English, twisted and leaning strongly toward the infantile. It would take more time than it’s worth to respond – in fact, his ‘biblical’ arguments are so confused it would hardly be possible. Let’s just sum up by mentioning that in the last 2,000 years nobody else managed to see what hf sees in the Bible until very recently. And they had made up their minds already and went looking to see where they could find a loophole – sort of like the way some people approach the Constitution.
Sigh… you’re right M.D. This is very bad for my blood pressure. I’m going to swear off responding to him. It won’t be easy. If anybody catches me at it I’ll buy you a beer.
Or a scotch.
Gesundheit (aab7c6) — 8/13/2010 @ 7:36 pmTimes like this, only Iowahawk really captures the ambiance;
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/05/newsweek_lutefi.html
ian cormac (2e065c) — 8/13/2010 @ 7:47 pmno I’m a super awesome Lutheran with Lutheran retsin crystals!
on Christ the solid rock I stand all other ground is sinking sand
lift high the cross the love of Christ proclaim let all the world adore his sacred name
I can go all night!
I shan’t however.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/13/2010 @ 8:04 pmLighten up, folks. Happyfeet ain’t Satan. People have their own relationship with God, Yaweh, Allah, Buddha, higher power, etc … Just because he does not share yours does not make him the devil incarnate.
JD (3dc31c) — 8/13/2010 @ 8:10 pmthank you
gonna take pills now for sleeping
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/13/2010 @ 8:16 pmJD-
no one said he was the Devil Incarnate
ian cormac-
Thank you for that diversion. I have three comments-
First, either somebody is from the “Old Country” or they misspelled. It’s Rhinelander, not Rheinlander, or my Badger Red has faded.
Second, there are no charismatic Lutheran clerics. (Of course, from an Iowan’s point of view, maybe there are).
Three, they mention shortages of Old Style, which suggests as of 2005 it was still around- haven’t had one since some time in the 1980’s. (It was the unofficial prefered beer in Madison).
Comment by Lord Nazh- best wishes back at you.
MD in Philly (5a98ff) — 8/13/2010 @ 9:17 pmIn my opinion, FWIW, the only reason polygamy will not soon be made legal is that those pushing the envelope will not want to push it that far, yet anyway- lest the people who say, “I don’t care, just so they leave me alone” be woken from their slumber. To me it seems once you change the definition of a word/concept that has been around thousands of years for no reason other than personal preference, then who is to say some personal preferences are OK but others are not. It would seem to me that the argument for polygamy would be on stronger ground once the definition of marriage had been changed once already. It would cause quite a stir if someone filed a grievance in Massachusetts to make polygamy legal.
Under this paradigm, the government must recognize polygamous unions as marriages, even if it does not grant any sort of legal incidents, or if the marriage certificate has the same substantive legal effect as the adoption certificates that came with Cabbage Patch Kids.
What is really interesting is how In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B. and Bonilla v. Hurst will influence the Supreme Court. In Marriage of J.B., there is an allegation that substantive benefits are denied (specifically, that divorce is substantially different from voidance). (Marriage of J.B. will not reach the Supreme Court if its counterpart in Texas affirms the divorce while ruling that the Texas marriage amendment is constitutional or vacating a ruling from the lower court on the amendment’s constitutionality, or if it refuses to hear an appeal of a similar ruling from the Texas 5th Circuit).And neither side in Bonilla disputes that the state denies legal protections and benefits to same-sex partners that are offered to married couples.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 8/14/2010 @ 11:00 amExcept that they were not expecting this legal campaign to start in California, instead of a state like Louisiana or Wisconsin where the legal incidents of marriage are forbidden to same-sex partnerships.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 8/14/2010 @ 11:02 amHere is a quote from another blog.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 8/14/2010 @ 11:41 amThat portion of the ruling was wrongly decided. It was not necessary to even visit that issue, as the schools were not materially equal.
I can understand why Chief Justice Warren wanted to punt the issue of whether or not Plessy v. Ferguson was wrongly decided. But they could have simply ruled that the segregated schools did not materially meet the “separate but equal” test, leaving the issue of the validity of that rule for another case.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 8/14/2010 @ 5:27 pm