Conservative Judaism Will Lift Gay Ban

As reported in the the Jewish Daily Forward,

"The ordination of gay rabbis and the sanctioning of same-sex marriage within
Conservative Judaism is near certain, according to movement leaders who spoke at
a meeting in New York on Thursday night."

I can see two reasons beyond the obvious why this is good news. First, many Christians base the opinion on the morality of homosexuality from the Hebrew Scriptures, especially the sin of the residents of Sodom. The sin of Sodam has nothing to do with homosexuality, and this is belated recognition of this fact. (Ancient Rabbis have always know this). This might open some eyes.

Second, most of our opponents are not haters; they are sheep. They will go where the shepherd leads them.


With this change in policy, 2/3rds of Jewish congregations now accept full equality for gays, making Judaism the first great faith whose majority of congregations except full citizenshp for gay people.

Mazel Tov !

Bit by Bit

Same-sex marriage is the union of two people who are of the same gender. Other terms include "gender-neutral marriage", "equal marriage", "gay marriage", "lesbian marriage," "homosexual marriage", and "same-gender marriage".

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, opposing efforts to legalize or ban same-sex civil marriage made it a topic of debate all over the world. At present, same-sex marriages are recognized in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and the U.S. commonweath of Massachusetts.

On December 1, 2005, South Africa’s Constitutional Court extended marriage to include same-sex couples. The court mandated that changes go into effect by the end of 2006.

Civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other legal recognitions of same-sex couples which offer varying amounts of the benefits of marriage are available in: Andorra, Argentina, Brazil, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the Australian states of New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory and the U.S. states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, and the U.S. territory of Washington, D.C.. The first same-sex union with government recognition was obtained in Denmark in 1989.

Information quoted from Answers.com

UPDATED 07.20.2011


Here is a map of marriage rights as of the date noted above:

An Unlikely Source

Victories have often come from an unlikely source.

Virtually all of the expansion of civil and privacy rights came from the decisions of the Warren Court. Chief Justice Earl Warren was a hard-nosed Republican prosecutor before joining the court.

When abortion rights were hanging by a thread, it was Sandra Day O'Connor, a staunch opponent of abortion who voted with the majority, repeatedly, to uphold Roe v. Wade.

I believe it is all but beyond dispute that the biggest victory ever for full equality for the GLBT commumnity was "Romer v. Evans". You can read about the case here if you are not familiar with it. But the most remarkable thing about the case was that the GLBT community owes its victory to an unlikey source, current Chief Justice of the United States, John G. Roberts.

Mr. Roberts was, at the time a lawyer for Hogan & Hartson; he was asked to assist, pro bono, the gay rights side of the case. He agreed and according to those who argued the case, his assistance was indispensible. Don't take my word for it. listen to the view of our our enemies.

My point is this:

Have faith in the machinations of our legal system. Justice will alway win in the end, and those victories will often come from an unlikely source.

What Does Liberty Mean?

For months now I have been following and participating in debates about religion, politics, and civil rights. I have long been amazed at the degree of difficulty we have in trying to communicate. Obviously a major part of this problem is that both sides use the language so as to deliberately mislead. Pro-life vs. pro-choice immediately come to mind. But I am beginning to see a larger pattern, something more fundamendal. That something is the meaning of Liberty itself.

The modern social conservative is collectivist. Liberty to him or her is a right exercised by the people at large. And that means that the people have the right to proscribe anything that they, the majority, see as a threat to the utopian ideal of what society should be. In a nutshell they believe people must be free to use the government as the enforcer of mores.

The modern social Liberal sees Liberty as an individual right, a right held by each person to be free from government interference. The modern Liberal does not deny that government has a role in the structure of society and the modern Conservative does not deny that there is a place for individual Liberty.

The difference is this:

The modern Liberal believes that before the government can proscribe, it, the government, must show that it has a unimpeachable necessity to act. The modern Conservative believes that it is the minority that must show that its demands cause no harm to the Liberty of society to decide.

Think about it, and let's discuss.

Beyond Marriage

Beyond Marriage is a fast growing group of people with some interesting ideas.

Here is the short form:

The time has come to reframe the narrow terms of the marriage debate in the United States. Conservatives are seeking to enshrine discrimination in the U.S. Constitution through the Federal Marriage Amendment. But their opposition to same-sex marriage is only one part of a broader pro-marriage, “family values” agenda that includes abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom. Moreover, a thirty-year political assault on the social safety net has left households with more burdens and constraints and fewer resources.

Meanwhile, the LGBT movement has recently focused on marriage equality as a stand-alone issue. While this strategy may secure rights and benefits for some LGBT families, it has left us isolated and vulnerable to a virulent backlash. We must respond to the full scope of the conservative marriage agenda by building alliances across issues and constituencies. Our strategies must be visionary, creative, and practical to counter the right's powerful and effective use of marriage as a “wedge” issue that pits one group against another. The struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families. To that end, we advocate:

- Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families – regardless of kinship or conjugal status.

- Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance.

- Separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families.

- Freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities and expression.

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:

· Single parent households

· Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls)

· Blended and extended families

· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents

· Adult children living with and caring for their parents

· Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives

· Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

· Care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS.

The current debate over marriage, same-sex and otherwise, ignores the needs and desires of so many in a nation where household diversity is the demographic norm. We seek to reframe this debate. Our call speaks to the widespread hunger for authentic and just community in ways that are both pragmatic and visionary. It follows in the best tradition of the progressive LGBT movement, which invented alternative legal statuses such as domestic partnership and reciprocal beneficiary. We seek to build on these historic accomplishments by continuing to diversify and democratize partnership and household recognition. We advocate the expansion of existing legal statuses, social services and benefits to support the needs of all our households.

We call on colleagues working in various social justice movements and campaigns to read the full-text of our statement “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision,” and to join us in our call for government support of all our households.

Top 12 Reasons Homosexual Marriage Should Not Be Legal

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer life spans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

The Argument Points of Gay Marriage Opposition

By John Hosty Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:04:01 PM EST On Talk2Action.org

I wish to share my thoughts on points I have seen brought to the knowthyneighbor.org blog from opponents of gay marriage. It is my observation that most if not all arguments can be identified as falling into one of these catagories, and in that can be counter argued with the counter points listed. Thank you for your time.
topic: section:Diaries


The arguments on the opposition of marriage can be summed up in about ten points:

1. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman argument.

2. The homosexuality goes against God argument.

3. The protect the children argument.

4. The tradition of marriage argument.

5. The impact on society argument.

6. The slippery slope effect on marriage laws.

7. The against nature argument.

8. The forced policy changes for religions argument.

9. The SJC hijacked marriage argument.

10. The Marriage is for procreation argument.

Let's start with the arguments that I consider to be the weaker ones and move on to the ones we need to explain better as we go on.

1. The definition argument. A legal definition can be changed with the stroke of a pen. Gay used to mean happy, and then society decided it most commonly meant homosexual. Definitions change with time. To simply say the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman is not a good enough reason to deny millions of people equality.

2. The tradition of marriage argument. Marriage and its composure has changed so greatly in the past one hundred years that most of its origional meanings are gone. Immigrants from all over the world came here to form a great melting pot of different views, religious and otherwise. Marriage to most was "chattel" which is not much more than a father giving money to be rid of the financial burden of his daughter to her new master, the husband. I think that most people want to imply that their viewpoint of marriage has a certain sacredness to it via tradition. I bring the point of chattel to argue that things have changed greatly in a short amount of time, and if you ask most women they would not be eager to go back to the old ways. What is one person's idea of tradition in America is not applicable to another because the government is set up to give us the freedom to believe what we want and to honor people's different viewpoints equally. Gay marriage is the next most logical step looking at the history of civil rights, and no one person's sense of tradition should be so great as to enable them to impose their traditions on someone else.

3. The against nature argument. The idea that homosexuality goes against nature implies intelligent design theory, and in that becomes a religious viewpoint. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. You are perfectly within your rights to believe what you want, as am I. My beliefs incorporate a God that made me this way and wants me to experience the world from this specific view not only for my benefit, but for the benefit of those who I meet. My gut response to the gay marriage is against nature argument is, "So what?" People get tattoos and body piercings, liposuction, and artificial limbs. These are all against nature too, but we are free to pursue what we wish, are we not? My marriage to Ray, if that ever happens, will likely not effect any of you that do not wish it to, because our circles don't mingle together.

4. The protect the children argument. It is a known fact that homosexuals adopt children of broken homes and give them more love and support than they would have received from being in a shelter or foster care. Being in a loving environment that nurtures growth is what is most important for anyone's development, not just children. People have said that a child is best served by having two parents, a male and a female, for role models. This argument's flaw is that it doesn't take into consideration that there are many children that this is not an option for. The details of how well children do in a same sex family setting is out there if you want to see it.

5. The slippery slope argument. Basically said, if the society allows gay marriage we will next have to allow marriages to animals, children, and polygamy will be legal. Marriage cannot be created between man and beast because we don't know if the beast agrees, and that should be the end of that. Children are protected from making a decision on marriage until they reach a certain age because again we don't know if a younger child understands what marriage means. The legal age in New Hampshire is 14 as long as you are straight. Kinda young don't you think? As for polygamy, people who want to have multiple partners will, no matter what others say. It happens in every society.

6. The forced changes in religion argument. If gay marriages stay, the next step is that they will make religious organizations sanction gay weddings. Very plainly put, most gay people want equal rights and they want some respect. We have no intention of invading your religious institutions and demanding you change your beliefs to include us. Your rights to believe what you want are protected and guaranteed. Civil marriage is government sanctioned and has nothing to do with anyone's religion. Feel free to continue to deny rights to all the parishioners that will put up with it. Ladies, how is the fight to be ordained coming?

7. The impact on society argument. This basically states that if we continue down the path of homosexual equality and marriage we as a society will face negative ramifications and our morality will slide into oblivion. There are many people that have opinions on this matter, I am going to listen to the people that have their education in the field of psychology and sociology. The American Psychiatric Association has made its view clear on gay marriage: it is for it. Massequality.org has the quote in full if you want to read it.

8. The religion argument. The Bible teaches people that homosexuality is an abomination to God. On the same page it also says that eating pork is an abomination to God. We understand the need to educate the poor hundreds of years ago that eating pork can kill you if it is not cooked properly, so they would say God told you not to eat it. We eat pork all the time now and God has not come to smite us for that, how is it that it could be worded in the same strength as homosexuality if it was not His will? We could keep going with this thought and get into other religions that forbid homosexuality. I could also bring up that we have had Catholic sanctioned gay weddings around 300 A.D., but it fractures the point I wish to make. Again, like in the tradition point, religious freedom in America protects your right to believe what you want, but it protects me from having your beliefs forced onto me.

9. The courts have been hijacked argument. This argument states that the SJC made an illegal move in considering Goodridge vs. State of Massachusetts. If this court decision was illegal where are all the lawyers? Are there no straight lawyers to argue this case, or do they just happen to know that the SJC has the authority, by the people, to create such a mandate. I have posted before a quote from George Wallace that parallels this argument, let me post it one more time for us to compare:

On June 11, 1963, Alabama's Governor George Wallace came to national prominence when he kept a campaign pledge to stand in the schoolhouse door to block integration of Alabama public schools. Governor Wallace read this proclamation when he first stood in the door-way to block the attempt of two black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, to register at the University of Alabama. President John F. Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard, and ordered its units to the university campus. Wallace then stepped aside and returned to Montgomery allowing the students to enter.

STATEMENT AND PROCLAMATION

OF

GOVERNOR GEORGE C. WALLACE

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA

June 11, 1963

"As Governor and Chief Magistrate of the State of Alabama I deem it to be my solemn obligation and duty to stand before you representing the rights and sovereignty of this State and its peoples.

The unwelcomed, unwanted, unwarranted and force-induced intrusion upon the campus of the University of Alabama today of the might of the Central Government offers frightful example of the oppression of the rights, privileges and sovereignty of this State by officers of the Federal Government. This intrusion results solely from force, or threat of force, undignified by any reasonable application of the principle of law, reason and justice. It is important that the people of this State and nation understand that this action is in violation of rights reserved to the State by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alabama. While some few may applaud these acts, millions of Americans will gaze in sorrow upon the situation existing at this great institution of learning."

10. The procreation argument states that marriage is for the purpose of creating children and in doing so creating a future generation for our country to survive. First we need to recognize that we allow marriage between people that are unable or unwilling to have children all the time. In order to fairly use procreation as a point to deny gays marriage it should be true for all citizens wishing to marry, but it is not. There is little wiggle room on this point, so I won't waste more time on it unless someone wants to challenge that thought.

When your government puts into place laws that prevent people from being equal they set the stage for those who discriminate to feel justified. As people who have suffered discrimination it is our hope that gay marriage will end the government sanctioned part of our suffering and will be a light for people to see the error of judging people by who they are inherently. People come in many shapes sizes and forms. We have a great opportunity living in America to seize that diversity and make it work for ourselves. All we have to do is start listening to each other. We can all live together in harmony if we want to, we just have to set that mentality into action. Ask yourself what benefits you receive by denying marriage to those who seek it? I will gladly entertain any responses. Thank you for your time. We are all one small part of something very big. Let's start treating everyone like neighbors.

A Painful Truth?

Does the U.S. still have the right to say "we are the land of the free and home of the brave?" How can we be free if all people are not equal? How can we be brave, if we fear either change, or others that differentiate from ourselves? I dare say we no longer can call ourselves "leaders of the free world." For all men are not free. Not free to pursue happiness, as it states in our Declaration of Independence. We have no freedom of religion, to worship or not worship of our own choosing, as it states in our Bill of Rights. We are moving ourselves closer to what the fathers of our nation were trying to escape, one where religion is chosen for us, without our hand in the decision. It takes extreme courage to live in a nation as ours. Where the differences we have are our strengths, where all Americans are our brothers and sisters. To know others feel differently from us. To know others see god differently than us. To read the same book and know others can interpret the words differently. Are we becoming are own worst enemies? We scoff at other nations that subjugated their citizens. Our warriors fight and die to ensure freedom to another people. Have we become the land of the oppressed and home of the timid? I hope one day we can remedy our mistakes.

Are We Products of Our Upbringing?

We are all, to some extent, products of our upbringing. But one must be careful here. It is perfectly fine to reflect upon our upbringing to help understand how that upbringing has shaped our world view, but it is irresponsible to use it as an excuse for bigotry. Forgive me while I digress a bit and offer my own personal anecdote; I will get back to my point.

I was raised in a very strict Roman Catholic home, which has a lot to do with why I have never viewed homosexuality as anything other than a natural variant of human sexuality.

Think about that for a moment.

I just said that I view homosexuality as a natural variant of human sexuality BECAUSE of my strict Catholic upbringing. At this point you may properly ask what it is that I am smoking. You see, when I became a young teen, I would think of sex a fair amount of the time. In fact, all I had to do was hear or read certain words and I would think of sex; words like girl, skirt, leg, outboard motor, etc. But in my Catholic home anything that could even be remotely connected to sexuality was simply never discussed. So I had to learn on my own with no input from my caregivers.

The most influentual source of my education was a weekly series of magazines called, "The Story of Life". It was a 53 week series that explained in clinical but readable detail everything about human life, love, and sexuality. One issue was dedicated to "Lovers of the Same Sex", and it dealt with the issue in a frank and totally non-judgemental manner. Since this was my only real source of information, I had no reason to think that there was a judgement to be made. If I had been indoctrinated at a young age that homosexuality was not a normal variant of human sexuality, it is quite possible that I would not be able to easily adjust my thinking as an adult. In fact, I suspect that most people will find it difficult, as an adult, to rethink what they have been taught are fundamental values. But society's mores are and have always been in constant flux, and each individual's view of what is a fundamental value will sometimes yield, and sometimes not. But as society as a whole becomes more tolerant, more and more people will rise above their upbringing and rethink their values.

The bottom line is that, as a society, we are becoming more liberal, more tolerant, more diverse, and closer and closer every day to our Founders' goal.

Liberty and Justice for all.

This is pretty clear:

The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom

Thomas Jefferson, 1786


Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

Credit to: http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/

Thank you John for introducing me to this.

A Subtle Root to Hate

Volumes have been written by minds far greater that mine on the roots of hate. I won't pretend to understand the myriad causes, but I have in my own experience, been taught a damaging philosophy that is, in my view a subtle root of hate. That philosophy is condencension.

I am old enough, just barely, to remember the Good Friday prayer as it stood just prior to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. I remember saying these words.

"Let us pray also for the perfidious Jews: that our God and Lord would remove the veil from their hearts: that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ...Almighty and everlasting God, Who drivest not away from Thy mercy even the perfidious Jews: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people: that acknowledging the light of Thy truth, which is Christ, they may be rescued from their darkness. Through the same Lord...Amen."

The prayer was changed in 1965 to scratch the word "perfidous" and replace it with "faithless", an improvement to be sure, but just barely.

When I was in the Parochial school, it was the custom at the time that our day would last a half an hour longer than that of the public school. I remember sitting in the sweltering summer heat for that extra half hour, which felt like eternity, because I could hear the public school kids playing outside. I foolishly mumbled something to effect of "lucky duckies". Which earned me a trip to the principal's office. I will never forget her words.

She said,
"Don't you ever, ever, (and one more time for emphasis) EVER, envy those poor unfortunate souls."

She clarified that these souls were unfortunate, not because they were public school kids, but because they were largely Protestant.

If you disagree with my position on any matter, tell me that I am wrong and present your case. I will listen.

But don't tell me that I am not as good as you or that you will "pray for me to see the light".

Because condencension is just one small step from hate.

Let the People Vote

Conservatives are united in their disdain for "judicial activism". Nothing, it seems, bothers them more than when a court overrules the "will of the people". After all, when the people speak, either directly, or through their duly elected legislature, why should their plainly stated decisions be overturned by unelected judges?

Alberto Gonzales is the Attorney General of the United States, and he represents (arguably) the most conservative Justice Department in decades, and he respects the will of the people and disdains unelected judges overruling the will of the people.

With all due respect, I have a few questions for you, Mr. Gonzales.

When the people of Oregon voted (twice) to allow physician assisted suicide, why did you go to court and ask unelected judges to overturn the will of the people? (Gonzales v. Oregon)

When the people of California voted to allow the state regulated use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, why did you go to court and ask unelected judges to overturn the will of the people? (Gonzales v. Raich)

Just asking.

Hate Crime, Hate Speech and the First Amendment

Concerned Women for America(TM) has an article in opposition to hate crime legislation on their site. It begins with:

“Proponents of "hate crime" laws say they are needed to protect minorities from acts of violence. But "hate crime" laws are unnecessary. Criminal acts are already illegal. What's more, "hate crime" laws violate the constitutional right to equal protection, create the un-American offense of "thought crime," and abridge the freedoms of speech, religion and association.

"Hate crime" laws work this way: They add penalties to a criminal sentence if the criminal is also convicted of having a "hateful" intent toward the victim based on the victim's real or perceived group identity. Crime victims who don't fit into certain categories see their assailants face lesser penalties. Ultimately, "hate crime" laws punish only beliefs or thoughts.(1)”

This is patently absurd.

The single sentence that most raises my suspicion is this:

"Crime victims who don't fit into certain categories see their assailants face lesser penalties".

That is as it should be, because in the United States we have long accepted that the punishment should not fit the crime but rather the punishment should fit the criminal. A criminal who is motivated by hate and takes action against an individual because of that individual's membership in a group is a more dangerous criminal. That criminal deserves greater punishment not so much because his/her actions are more objectionable, but because society deserves greater protection from those who would be more likely to re-offend because of their animus towards a particular group.

But.

I am sympathetic to the concern that a poorly constructed bill could cross the line into creating a thought crime. Fortunately, our system, pursued with due diligence, is self-correcting.

We all agree that some kinds of speech do not deserve the protection of the First Amendment. There are (depending on how one enumerates them) six or seven exceptions. Of these five are beyond dispute, and the last two, while still controversial in the minority of mainstream thought, are well accepted in law

These exceptions are:

Fraud
Libel
Slander
Clear and Present Danger
Fighting Words
Obscenity
Child Pornography

Where does hate speech fit?

HATE SPEECH IS PROTECTED SPEECH!

We who despise hate speech must afford our opponents the right to hate and the right to articulate that hate. Oliver Wendell Holmes says it better that I could:

"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more
imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free
thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the
thought that we hate."

In conclusion, any speech, no matter how hateful, no matter how hurtful, must be protected. Only speech that crosses one the five lines of fraud, libel, slander, clear and present danger or fighting words may be proscribed.
But, hate crime legislation that properly accesses a greater penalty for an illegal act is a proper use of the criminal justice system.

(1) http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=9672&department=CFI&categoryid=papers

We Should Take Them at Their Word

How often do we hear those who complain about “judicial activism” say. “Where in the Constitution does it say separation of church and state, or the right to privacy or freedom of association or right to a fair trial”?

The Constitution says none of those things, but the Constitution means all of those things, and more.

The Framers wrote in broad terms, and we should take them at their word.

In his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Roberts was asked if he was an originalist. He answered:

“I think it's very important to define these terms. Let's take the originalist approach. I do think that the framers' intent is the guiding principle that should apply.

However, you do need to be very careful and make sure that you're giving appropriate weight to the words that the framers used to embody their intent.

I think of, in particular, the Fourth Amendment (sic) and the equal protection clause. There are some who may think they're being originalists who will tell you, Well, the problem they were getting at were the rights of the newly freed slaves. And so that's all that the equal protection clause applies to.

But, in fact, they didn't write the equal protection clause in such narrow terms. They wrote more generally.

That may have been a particular problem motivating them, but they chose to use broader terms, and we should take them at their word, so that is perfectly appropriate to apply the equal protection clause to issues of gender and other types of discrimination beyond the racial discrimination that was obviously the driving force behind it. That is an originalist view because you're looking at the original intent as expressed in the words that they chose. And their intent was to use broad language, not to use narrow language.”

But what did the framers of the 14^th amendment intend? Does it matter? Do you think the framers of the 14^th thought that their broad language would later be used in Loving v. Virginia to strike down bans on interracial marriage?

One of those framers, Illinois Republican Senator Lyman Trumbull had this to say

"If the negro is denied the right to marry a white person, [and] the white person is equally denied the right to marry the negro[,] I see no discrimination against either." Neither the Civil Rights Act of 1866 nor the Fourteenth Amendment would have passed if it had intended to strike down laws against interracial marriage.”

And yet, the court ruled otherwise, as well it should.

Because the Framers wrote in broad terms, and we should take them at their word.

So, even though we can be quite certain that the Framers never gave same sex marriage a thought, the broad language they chose precludes us from construing their words in narrow terms.

We should take them at their word.

Helping to Spread the Words of Reverend Phelps

I have been visiting our opponents websites to see what trouble they are getting into. When I got onto the Westborough Baptist church's website GodHatesFags.com, I could not resist listening to Reverend Phelps in his latest sermon. If you want to talk about slippery slope I give you the dear Reverend. Exactly how far back are you willing to let our social progress go? Listen for yourself and see if you can relate to what the preacher says. Listen to the whole thing, then decide if you want to follow what he teaches. Remember the days when people who were the opposite sex could not live together unless they were married? Remember when you could buy a wife? By the way, touching a dead skin of a pig is an obomination to God, so no more football. Go ahead and click on the hyperlink, then leave a comment if you want.

The 21st Century American

Americans have a history of liberty, courage, honor, discipline, kindness, and compassion to name of few of the many positive qualities. We unfortunately also have just as long a history of hatred, dishonesty, violence, and discrimination. Many people today struggle with what teachings they should follow, and which they should abandon in their search for a better world for themselves and their descendants. I suggest that you follow some simple guidelines when trying to descern right from wrong.

No religion or ideal is inherently bad unless it calls for harm to someone or someone's property. First and foremost our founding fathers realized this and made every attempt to make sure that one religious ideal would not oppress, restrict, or curtail the liberty of another person to practice something different.

Thomas Jefferson, in his 1st inaugural address in 1801 said, “Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable. The minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression". Even earlier than that Washington said, "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”~George Washington, 1790

From these two comments we can see that our founders expected the constitution to grow with the ever changing needs of the country. They knew that America's culture would not remain static, and that old world ways will eventually have to give way to new ideas. Progress cannot occur when all things remain the same. They had seen so much change in their own during their own lives that it would have been foolish not to believe that change is a continuing and unstoppable force. Our best assets can come from these changes, we have to give way to new things and keep our eyes open for abuse. we can cautiously move forward creating intense, needed, positive change without destroying the fabric of the Universe. We do not need to stagnate spiritualy, while we progress exponentialy every other way.

Opponents of Gay Marriage Caught Committing Fraud

Someone on the website knowthyfactsnotthyneighbors.blogspot.com was posing as Gregg Jackson from the radio show The Pundit Review on WRKO. An email was sent to WRKO, and the thread was taken down for a day. When the thread was put back up there was an explanation given. This explanation leads me to one of two conclusions; the webmaster could have been the person posing as "Gregg", or it actually was Gregg Jackson, which explains his book being promoted on this website. Go to the website, read the explanation given by the webmaster at the bottom of the comments, and notice a few things:

All the hyperlinks for people's names worked fine before the webmaster took this thread down. Each person's name was attached to one hyperlink that they chose for themselves as one would expect. Anyone that knows anything about computers should agree that the explanation given does not seem to carry any truth to it.

1. All the time and date stamps are one right after another, all on July 28. This could have only been done by the webmaster reposting them, or someone of equal authority, yet there are no other contributors on this site. He forgot the time and date stamps would prove he manually manipulated the posts. The original posts started on July 22 and ended prior to July 27, when the thread was taken down temporarily.

2. Look at my post at 9:43AM and see how it is posted twice. I only posted it once.

3. Look at the same post again and see that my name does not have a hyperlink and the other post right after it does. This is proof he was stripping the names of their original hyperlinks and forgot to add a new one in. Very sloppy work.

4. The explanation given by the webmaster suggests that he re-posted this thread as it was found, with the errors intact, in an attempt to prove himself innocent of any fraud. If that was true the link to the Pundit Review would still be there, but it is not.

5. I believe the webmaster comes back on as "Gregg" and thanks himself for solving the problem, misspelling his own name when referring to the radio show host. I'd like to know how the problem solved if the links are still screwed up? I believe bringing back "Gregg" to defend and rebuke is the elaboration of a bad liar.

6. The only believable explanation as to why the webmaster would go through all this effort would be to save his own ass, hence my opinion that he is "Gregg".

7. On a different Thread titled, Gay Marriage Debate on Pundit Review Radio the webmaster admits he uses phony names, and I quote, "I am caller number '8' under the false name of 'Mike'...". This proves he has a history of using false names.

8. I think I may even have a clue as to exactly who this is. On the thread State Rep. Festa, the responding letter from Rep. Festa starts off, "Dear Paul", a clue that he again overlooked. I suspect this webmaster is none other than Paul Jamieson, a man banned from the KnowThyNeighbor.org website for being abusive and posting under multiple false names. He has been accused many times by many people that he is a paid troublemaker. His ties to Article 8 Alliance are self evident with Tyler Dawbin's (An admitted member of Atricle 8 Alliance) high presence on this website. It makes me wonder how far this all falls from Massachusetts Family Institute's Kris Mineau, the ring leader of the anti-gay marriage petition in Massachusetts.

It is a common tactic on web logs to see the opponents of gay marriage use multiple aliases and phony emails as they post. They want people to perceive their support as being stronger than it actually is. The fact that their support is not strong at all is proven in their need to commit this fraud. If you look to knowthyneighbor.org you will see a thread in September titled, Will the Real Mr. Intimidation Please Stand Up. I believe that this Mr. Intimidation and the webmaster of knowthyfactnotthyneighbors.blogspot.com are the same person, Paul Jamieson. It would seem foolish to me to think that someone who so virulenty hated and was so obsesively active against gay marriage would just go away because we told them to. I believe I have found how he has been spending part of his time.

Why is the issue of fraud so important? Because these are the same people who brought Massachusetts the anti-gay marriage petition and if people are going to vote on this issue, they should know how dishonest the people against gay marriage are. These are the same people that swear no fraud was committed when gathering signatures for the petition. If that were true there would be no criminal investigation. I think Angela McElroy's testimony at the Election Committee Hearing last Fall sums it up well. If you did not get a chance to see her, here is a link to a Fox 25 investigative report: Angela McElroy.

At the time this letter was submitted the webmaster still has not caught his mistakes when he manually manipulated the hyperlinks attached to people's names on the thread in question. The time and date stamps are one right after the other as he re-posted what he changed. Check it out for yourself and you will understand how red handed he is caught in his lie. This story is still an exclusive. I am hoping to publish this and give more readers get a chance to see this lie before the thread is removed or further altered.

There is one question I want to leave you with; are these people you can trust?

I have cut and pasted this website thread as it is since I know this post will be read by my opposition, and they will likely take it down when they realize they are caught in a lie. Below is a copy of the entire thread as it stands August 3, 12:54pm:

Saturday, July 22, 2006

What is a Marriage?
I have been having a conversation between myself and "John" on my site here. Below is some of that dialog regarding the human condition of homosexual behavior and what marriage means.
John, you said:
"If you look throughout history you can find homosexuality in every country throughout time. It does not need to be proven as genetic to be a part of the human condition."
Definition of the human condition:
The human condition encompasses the totality of the experience of being human and living human lives. As mortal entities, there are a series of biologically determined events which are common to most human lives, and some which are inevitable for all. The ongoing way in which humans react to or cope with these events is the human condition. However, understanding the precise nature and scope of what is meant by the human condition is itself a philosophical problem.
If you want to live you're chosen lifestyle in a philosophical bubble that is up to you. I, on the other hand, am going to live a lifestyle that works because it is what is MEANT to be not what I can philosophically argue for.
John, you said:
"That's the thing though. You are not a part of my marriage, its private between Ray and I."
If marriage were truly a private affair, which it is not, then same-sex marriages would have little impact on anyone's family. But marriage is just as much about the community as it is about the individuals, perhaps even more so. That's why marriages are public ceremonies, whether in churches or before civil authorities, and are regulated by laws. Marriage is a societal agreement.
No marriage is an island. Every marriage touches the community as a universally human community norm - a rule embraced by society for who we conduct ourselves sexually and domestically, and what we provide for children to meet their developmental needs. And every society must have a norm for what it expects and what it will NOT allow. Marriage is that social norm for the family. As humans, we are all connected and our decisions and actions - both public and private - DO affect other people, even if it is indirect and not always evident. There are no truly private marriages.
posted by SCIA at 4:36 PM

17 Comments:
Gregg said...
Scia, you are absolutely correct in your coherent and logical rebuttals to John's specious assertions. Great analysis.There are so many ways in which redefining marriage as a non-exclusive legal union can and does affect society. To claim that society and culture would not change in any way due to the redefining of the oldest social and family institution in history is disingenuous and immensely myopic. Our society has already changed in many ways here in Mass now that the activist MSJC (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) has unilaterally usurped the legislative authority of "we the people" via our elected reps. Now that homosexual "marriage" has been deemed "legal" by the MSJC, there has been a concerted effort to radically alter the curriculum in many public schools starting in pre-K. One need only consider Dr. Parker's situation in Lexington to see some of the inchoate cultural ramifications of homosexual "marriage." I have no problem with whatever "life-style" two "consenting adults" choose (although I don't take part in the pc glamorization of homosexuality since I consider it to be aberrant, immoral, and self-destructive behavior) However, determining the legal definition of marriage is purely a legislative issue that must be decided via "we the people." End of story. That is how our constitutional republican form of govt works. If the majority in mass decides that they want to redefine marriage, then so be it. I will accept the vote of the people. What I will not accept as a tax-paying citizen of the Commonwealth is 4 unbelted judges imposing their personal preferences upon me and legislating from the bench. And nobody who supports our constitutional form of govt with specific enumerated powers for each branch of gvot should either regardless of their sexual proclivities.
9:25 AM, July 28, 2006
John Hosty said...
Thomas Jefferson, in his 1st inaugural address in 1801 said, “Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable. The minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression".There are some things we should not have the power to vote on. No one has the right to make into law their morality. Feel free to live as you like and pursue your own happiness, so long it is not at my expense. The gay community is not going to go back in the closet. The days of us being afraid of public strutiny and violence is over, and they are not coming back. Get used to the fact that we have found our voice. Whether you can temporarily deny our rights or not, our influence remains. This is what I have been trying to tell you. You think that ending gay marriage is going to curtail our influence, but it won't. I find it ironic that in fighting the gay communities rights our opponents have brought more attention to our plight than we could have ever done on our own.I also find it ironic that our opposition can be so insensitive to the level of discrimination and abuse the gay community survives, and then ask us to think of their needs.
9:29 AM, July 28, 2006
Gregg said...
John,You stated:Thomas Jefferson, in his 1st inaugural address in 1801 said, "Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable. The minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression". I doubt he was talking about homosexual marriage. In fact, I would argue that as a defender of federalsim, Jefferson would have been an emphatic opponent of the judiciary redefining marriage w/out the consent of the people. You said:"There are some things we should not have the power to vote on. No one has the right to make into law their morality. Feel free to live as you like and pursue your own happiness, so long it is not at my expense." No, actually our common law is essentially a reflection of the collective morality of the citizenry. That is what the law is. Every law that is enacted is essentially a reflection of somebody's collective morality/ethics. Actually, your asertion denies the very foundation of our common law which is that "we the people" via the legislative process have the unequivocal "right" to impose our collective morality via the law. When we outlaw polygamy, for example, we the people are imposing our "morality" and enshrining it into law. You said;"The gay community is not going to go back in the closet. The days of us being afraid of public strutiny and violence is over, and they are not coming back. Get used to the fact that we have found our voice."That's great. Have a "voice." Just don't seek to radically redefine the legal definition of marriage via judicial fiat. All we ask is that you be "tolerant" of the constitutionally proscirbed legislative process. You said:"Whether you can temporarily deny our rights or not, our influence remains. This is what I have been trying to tell you. You think that ending gay marriage is going to curtail our influence, but it won't."Marriage is not a universal "right." It is a legally proscrbed and specifically enumerated legal privaledge which the state can and does limit and enforce. You have the "right" to marry. You just can't arbitrarily redefine the legal definition of marriage via judicail fiat. You, in actuality, have no "right" to subvert the legally proscribed constitutional process. Court don't make law. We the people via our elected reps do. Period. You said:"I find it ironic that in fighting the gay communities rights our opponents have brought more attention to our plight than we could have ever done on our own."What "plight" are you referring. Gays are more educated and earn more and live a higher std of living than any where else in the world. You want to talk about "plight?" Try being a homosexual in an Islamic country. They be-head you. You said:"I also find it ironic that our opposition can be so insensitive to the level of discrimination and abuse the gay community survives, and then ask us to think of their needs."What "discrimination" are you talking about. Opposing the unilateral redefining of marriage is no more "discrimination" than opposing any other effort to redefine any other law from the bench ( i.e. Kelo or Roe which "discriminated" against property owners and babies in hte womb respectively). All laws "discriminate" in one way or another. Laws are enacted by societies that reflect the moral preferences of the citizenry that coincide with natural law. Practices such as incest, bigamy, polygamy, and pedophilia are all sexual "relationships" which society has deemed to be immoral and without legal justification and protections and therefore discriminated against. The analogy between banning homosexual marriage and laws which banned interracial marriage is not an accurate comparison. Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia) because they frustrated the core purpose of marriage in order to sustain a racist legal order. In Loving v. Virginia the institution of marriage was not redefined. The court concluded that using race to deny a couple the right to legally marry was discriminatory. Yet it did not change the legal definition that marriage be confined to an exclusive union of one man and one woman. While advocates of homosexual "marriage" claim to be the victims of discrimination, they have no legal precedent to reinforce their central position. Thus it is fallacious reasoning to draw a parallel between racial discrimination and illegality of the so-called "same-sex marriage." Marriage laws were not invented to persecute or deny specific rights to homosexuals. Marriage laws in our country reinforce an institution that over thousands of years in thousands of cultures provided the foundation for stable societies.
9:31 AM, July 28, 2006
John Hosty said...
Thomas Jefferson was speaking about a principle. People deserve their freedom of religion. To oppress a group simply because you do not agree with their beliefs is not an American way. "No, actually our common law is essentially a reflection of the collective morality of the citizenry."This is the type of comment I mean when I say you use opinions as facts. There is no collective morality in such a diverse culture as our own. Laws were made to make sure we don't step on each others toes when it comes to this subject. There is no might makes right in our Constitution.I pray that some day you can find hapiness and peace, just not at my expense and I'll resiprocate the respect. That is the American way, "good walls make good neighbors." ~Robert FrostI enjoyed reading your post. It reminds me of SCIA and how he posts and comments... :)
9:32 AM, July 28, 2006
Gregg said...
JohnYou did not respond to one of my coherent and cogent arguments/rebuttals to your rediculous claims. I will assume you concurs with my assessment!Aside from that you claim:"This is the type of comment I mean when I say you use opinions as facts. There is no collective morality in such a diverse culture as our own. Laws were made to make sure we don't step on each others toes when it comes to this subject. There is no might makes right in our Constitution." Yes John there is a 'collective morality' called majority rule which governs our legislative process. That is not an "opinion" John. And our laws reflect the collective majority. You may want to read the constitution- specifically article 1 to find out more how laws are made. Laws are made to govern how we as a society act. Yes certain laws are enacted to protect minorities, but all laws are enacted by the constitutionally legally proscribed manner - via legislative bodies not unelected judges. If you want to change the law and redefine marriage, then convice enough voters that homosexual marriage is good for society . Until such a time, please respect the rule of law and our constitutionally proscribed legal process. It is obvious John that you probably have never read the U.S. constitution. Now may be a good time for that.
9:35 AM, July 28, 2006
John Hosty said...
How smug you sound assumimg I have not read the constitution. Let us review:Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I exercise my right to freedom of religion, and my beliefs are that God loves me just the way I am, and so should you. I respect all people's rights to believe and follow what they wish, and so should you.Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. I bring this up because I am not to be mass tried in court with the rest of the gay community because I am my own man. I demand due process to hear why I personally should not marry. Stating globally that all gay people are the same and should not be trusted with marriage is insane.Amendment XIVSection 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Deprive liberty...what would you call preventing a whole group of people from marrying? Amendment XVSection 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. I bring this up because the spirit of this amendment speaks of fairness and equality. Our Founders were smart enough to realize that our country would change and grow in different directions, that's why it is vague.Amendment XXVISection 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. I cite this amendment because again its spirit is not to deny a group of citizens a right. If you are old enough to die for this country, you are old enough to vote in my opinion. Yes I have read the Constitution, and I know that in its spirit it does not suggest that we should stand in the way of each other's hapiness.The next generation is about to take over, and they approve of gay marriage by 70%. This is about to be game over, would you care to discuss how we can live together in harmony like you said?
9:37 AM, July 28, 2006
Gregg said...
John,Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. You said:"I exercise my right to freedom of religion, and my beliefs are that God loves me just the way I am, and so should you. I respect all people's rights to believe and follow what they wish, and so should you."What does this have to do with homosexual marriage and redefining the legal definition of marraige via judicail fiat? Your argument makes zero sense. Your religious beliefs have nothing to do with whether you should be able to redefine marriage via activist courts. Waht are you talking about? If my mom wants to "marry" my sister do I have to "respect" and condone their marrying one another? Does the 1st amendment guarantee them that "right?" Do you even know who the primary author of the 1st Amendment was? Do you know why the 1st Amendment was ratified? Your comment makes me think that this is the first time you have ever read it b/c you are woefully inept in your analysis. When you begin from a standpoint of fallacious logic, everything tha tyou extrapolate from that point forward becomes total inadiapherous error. Your comment perfectly illustrates that axiomatic fact. Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. You said:"I bring this up because I am not to be mass tried in court with the rest of the gay community because I am my own man. I demand due process to hear why I personally should not marry. Stating globally that all gay people are the same and should not be trusted with marriage is insane."Huh? Those who seek to legally vote on marriage via the proscribed consittuionally mandated process is not "insane" It's what free people do in a free society John. Nobody ever said Homosexuals can't marry. They just can't redefine marriage and marry people of the same sex, or multiple people, or their sitster, or dog for that matter. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? You are your own "man?" What. Your obvious lack of understanding of the "due process" clause of hte Bill of Rights really trivializes its vital significance with regard to personal liberty and equality under the law. If anybody deserves "due process" its developing babies in the womb at 6 months who are murdered by aboritionists. They deserve "due process" and "equal protection." You enjoy "due process" under the law. I challenge you to cite one example of how you are being denied your "due process." Do you even know what the origins of this amendment are? Do you know who authored it or why? It is obvious you don't have a clue. Amendment XIVSection 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Deprive liberty...what would you call preventing a whole group of people from marrying? Again, you are not barred from marriage? You just can't unilaterally change the law via juciial fiat. If you want to redefine marriage laws, you have to do so via the legislative process. That's how constitutions are amended John and (laws changed). If any group deserves due process of the law its teh groups who seek to amend the consittution in the legally proscribed manner. Liberty is not equivalent to judicial activism. Amendment XVSection 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. You said:"I bring this up because the spirit of this amendment speaks of fairness and equality. Our Founders were smart enough to realize that our country would change and grow in different directions, that's why it is vague."Uh. no. you may want to educate yourself on why the 15th amendment was ratified. It had to do with ending voter discrimination based on skin color and race. I would ask you to provide one legal scholar who has ever cited the 15th amendment to support homosexuals being able to redefine marrige. You have proven with that inane statement that you have no fundamental or even remote understanding of the Consitution. Amendment XXVISection 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. You said:"I cite this amendment because again its spirit is not to deny a group of citizens a right. If you are old enough to die for this country, you are old enough to vote in my opinion."And what the hell does this have to do with homosexual "marriage?" This is as preposterous as it is risible. You are not serious with this statement are you?" its spirit is not to deny a group of citizens a right. " No, the 26th amendment was ratified to establish the voting age at 18 nation wide. What the hell does the voting age have to do with homosexual marriage? I feel like I'm debating with a 5 year old. Sorry but that is the truth. You said:"Yes, I have read the Constitution, and I know that in its spirit it does not suggest that we should stand in the way of each other's hapiness."And which constitutional hisorians support that view? I think you may want to take a refresher course. The Constitution provides the enumerated powers of govt and the unalianable rights of the citizenry. But you have in no way provided any type of cogent and well reasoned substantiated consitutional srgument in support of homosexual "marraige." Lot's of flowery slogans about "happineness" and "the spirit of this amendment..." but nothing remotely resembling a coherent argument that in any way butresses the central premise of your argument . (If you even have one) You said:"The next generation is about to take over, and they approve of gay marriage by 70%."Would you care to cite the poll showing that 70% of the "next gegneration" (I dont't quite know what age gorup you are referring to but am sure you will provide the specific poll/polls you refer to) You said:"This is about to be game over, would you care to discuss how we can live together in harmony like you said?"Game over. The "game" has not even begun for homosexual "marriage". Every state that has voted on it has rejected it by significant margins including Oregon who (not a very conservative state) rejected same-sex marriage by almost 60%. One way we can "live in harmony" is if you would respect the rule of law and constitutionally proscrtibed legislative process in which the people decide moral issues such as these.Another way John way we can "live in harmony" is if you quit ramming "gay marriage" down our throats and respect the vast majority of Americans who want to maintain traditional marriage the way it has always been for thousands of years which has been the cornerstone for all of Civilization (male-female) period!
9:38 AM, July 28, 2006
John Hosty said...
You don't have the right to take a vote on my rights when the people collecting the signatures where paid to collect them by any means necessary. Your side in this argument is living a lie, and the criminal investigation that is going on about this lie will reveal the level of duplicity that was involved. Moral pillars of the community have bold faced lied about their knowledge in this, all for not as it will come out in the wash. This petition would have never passed were it not for Arno Political Consultants greasing the palms of their criminal signature collectors, so cite to me activist judges all you want, but they didn't break the law. They are not part of a criminal investigation.You can continue to make speculations of my understanding of things, which I am sure is only to provoke, but is does not change my questions or my opinions. You do not understand the next generation and what they want. 70% are for gay marriage, and at the end of the day they will be the ones to decide their own future, and ours.I guess we are not going to try to find a common ground then huh?
9:39 AM, July 28, 2006
John Hosty said...
My source for 70% is PollingPoint.com
9:40 AM, July 28, 2006
Scia said...
John,You said:"Your side in this argument is living a lie, and the criminal investigation that is going on about this lie will reveal the level of duplicity that was involved."Have you read the news lately? The whole petition collection process was deemed constitutional and legal by the Supreme Court before the Constitutional Convention on July 11th. Check out my post on the topic: "Supreme Judicial Court Rules Ballot Initiative is Constitutional." Is this what you are talking about because if it is your comments are invalid.In regards to your polling source: I think polling point is right up there with the polls taken by USA Today. Do you know what age group, gender, ethnicity, religion took part in this poll? What group of people were targeted? Have the poll results been continuously replicated to validate them? Come on John, your logic has been better than this. There has not been ONE poll conducted outside of the State House concerning how the people want to vote on same-sex marriages that is more valid than for the 170,000 who signed the petition of which 123,356 were certified by the state of MA and determined to be legal by the courts.
9:42 AM, July 28, 2006
John Hosty said...
We can argue symantics all day. How are we getting any closer to our origional goal?
9:43 AM, July 28, 2006
John Hosty said...
We can argue symantics all day. How are we getting any closer to our origional goal?
9:44 AM, July 28, 2006
Scia said...
John,Don't make it look like I am going off track. You are the one providing me with your fallacious comments in which you have not been able to defend with fact or some sort of irrefutable comebacks. I have tried to refute your claims, and have done so numerous times even though you disagree with my rebuttles, but you apparently have not been able to logically refute mine.If you would like to move on, something that I had recommended many posted comments ago, I am all for it.Next topic of debate, or continue beating a dead horse?
9:45 AM, July 28, 2006
Gregg said...
John, For the record, you failed to rebut one of my rebuttals to your incongruous and nonsensical "arguments." I will assume therefore that you don't have the vaguest clue about what you are talking about and just threw a bunch of fecal matter against the wall so see what would stick not figuring that you might run into somebody who was going to expose your idiotic assertions for what they were-ignorant ramblings of somebody who is not well versed in rhetoric or Constitutional jurisprudence. In the future, don't bring a plastic spoon to a gun fight. My intention was not to 'provoke" it was to disprove the rediculous assertions you have posited. And I accomplished that. That is obvious to anybody witnessing our "exchange." As for the "poll" you cited "Pollingpoint.com" don't make me laugh. Are you serious? That is an internet polling company that has no credibility in the polling community. Can you cite the specific poll? When was the poll conducted? Who was asked? What question were they asked? Was there a margin of error?How can they reconcile being at antipodal odds with every reputable polling organization (Gallup, Rasmussen, Opinion Dynamics, ipsos-Reid, etc...) that shows about 70 to 90% of Americans opposed to homosexual "marriage?" Can you answer that question John? Here are a few reputable polling companies with a consistent established track record of success (i.e. high predictive value) of you may want to consider that show the opposite. Americans overwhelmingly oppose homosexual marriage and this sentiment cuts accross racial, class, socio-economic, and political boundaries.Sorry John. But those are the FACTS as opposed to your internet poll you cite.http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm "Public opposition to "marriages" between homosexuals is at an all-time high, according to a poll released yesterday. When asked whether they thought same-sex "marriages" should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages, 68 percent of the respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they should not. Twenty-eight percent said same-sex "marriages" should be valid and 4 percent had no opinion. The survey of 443 adults was conducted March 18 to 20. A similar poll by Gallup last year found that 55 percent thought homosexual "marriages" should not be valid, while 42 percent said they should be recognized. In addition, 466 adults were asked in the same time period what marital arrangements they thought should be recognized for homosexual couples. The poll found that 20 percent favored same-sex "marriage," 27 percent said civil unions, and 45 percent said "neither." When asked whether they favored a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as "between a man and a woman," 57 percent said yes, while 37 percent were opposed. Last year, 48 percent favored the amendment and 46 percent opposed it. Currently, 43 states have laws that bar recognition of same-sex "marriages," according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Twenty-six states have only statutes defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, and 17 have constitutional language. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103756,00.htmlAccording to a FOX News poll conducted in the days following the Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts, 66 percent of Americans oppose and 25 percent favor same-sex marriage. These new results are similar to those from August 2003, as well as results from 1996, when 65 percent of the public said they opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry. Opinion Dynamics Corporation ( search ) conducted the national poll Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, November 18 and 19.The ruling said it was illegal under the Massachusetts Constitution to block gay couples from the "protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex." Fully 80 percent of Republicans oppose same-sex marriage, as do 66 percent of independents and 55 percent of Democrats. More men than women oppose allowing gays to marry (72 percent and 62 percent respectively), and seniors are more likely than young adults to oppose same-sex marriage (80 percent versus 54 percent). Again John, instead of making ridiculous statements you can't back up, try educating yourself so that you won't embarass yourself in the future.We can find "common ground" but you have to be willing to be intellectually honest and acknowledge that you really have no clue what you are talking about as the previous 10 posts have demonstarted.
9:47 AM, July 28, 2006
John Hosty said...
Well Gregg, If I squint I think I can still see your dignity under all those insults. It is easy to name call. Try discussing our arguing points. By the way, "jurisprudence" is two words.You can say I didn't answer your comments, but all somone has to do is scroll up and see for themselves. You can call me a loaf of bread if you want too, it isn't going to make it true.I can check the numbers and be back to discuss them further and can throw numbers at each other all day, but it does not help us resolve our issues. You think that gay marriage is wrong, and I don't. You want to use your majority to force your will on me. I don't. It is a simple matter of the pursuit of happiness vs. old world morality. The real question is can you get away with it?More and more people are understanding every day that there is nothing to fear from the gay community, and as that happens you lose your control, and your sense of belonging. This is not supposed to be your government forever, and your ways are not going to be upheld. I live right next to the college, I know what the students are saying, and they have seen the light.I am sorry you are getting so upset, but that's the way it is. If this even goes to a vote in 2008 my side will win. I was here to discuss how we can get to know each other, and better understand what we expect of each other. Is that not worth discussing?
9:48 AM, July 28, 2006
SCIA said...
To Gregg and John,I am sorry that this post was down and out for a day or so. I recieved notice from blogger that the post was in "error". I asked what had occured and I guess that the links under your names were not correct in that they were connected to other sites that are unrelated to your name or blogspot or website or whatever you represent. It was suggested that maybe the links were "invaded" by cookies from these other sites and somehow attached themselves to your comments.Needless to say, everything is alright now and things are back to normal. My name, Scia, is linked to my site and every other comment on my blog with a link is correct. Again, my appologize.Scia
3:20 PM, July 28, 2006
Gregg said...
Scia,Thanks for taking care of the problem. I was wondering why my name was linked to that Boston radio station website. The funny thing was, the host of the show, Pundit Reform or Review or something like that, had the name of Greg as well. It is almost like an episode out of the Twilight Zone. LOL. Anyway, I usually do not link my name to anything considering that I do not have a blog or website of my own. Maybe now that I am popular in Boston, I should!!! John, I rest my case. You could not answer one question I posed including the "study" you cited that demonstrated "70% support for homosexual marriage." I knew that you couldn't and proved my main point, which is that you can't buttress your main arguments and can only perpetually change the topics in an attempt to obfuscate your utter lack of reasoning abilities. I never insulted you John. Don't mistake your being made to look foolish because you can't engage in a civilized discourse/debate by answering direct question directly and succinctly. Also, don't imply that I "fear" the "gay community." What I fear most is not your sexual proclivities. In fact, I could care less whom you have sex with. What I do "fear" however is your ignorance with regard to the Constitution and the rule of law in general. Your comments throughout the thread demonstrate even a rudimentary comprehension of Constitutional Law, which I have no problem with except that you cited it to purportedly under gird the central premise of your argument. So if you choose to delude yourself into believing quixotically about the "next generation" "seeing the light" (whatever that means) you go right ahead and live in your own little dream world. That is your prerogative. I only hope that some day you see the "light" and understand that God (The God of the Bible) does love you but abhors sinful behavior and certainly does not condone homosexual marriage and in fact only condemns homosexual behavior throughout the Bible. And that sinful behavior will always separate you from having a direct and loving relationship with your Heavenly Father. The "good news" is that you can repent of your sin immediately and ask God to reveal Himself to you. When Jesus comes into your life, it will be changed forever. That is the "good news." Jesus died for your sins past, present, and future. I know b/c He changed my life in ways I never thought possible. You will be in my prayers John.Take care my friend,Gregg
7:46 PM, July 28, 2006

John's Chat Room

John's Chat Room hours are going to be Mondays, from 7:00PM to 10:00PM. Anyone interested in participating in a live discussion about gay marriage, the anti-gay petition, and anything else that seems relevant. I expect we will have both supporting and opposing views, and it will be an interesting experience. I am going to invite some of my friends to chime in, and I welcome Tyler Dawbin, Paul Jamieson, and whoever else wants to show up. This is an opportunity to talk directly to those you have a problem with in real time, yet in a safe enviornment. Time will tell if this chat room works or not, but it is an avenue we have not yet explored, so let's give it a try.

Thanks for your time, and I hope to see you soon.

Sincerely,

John Hosty