I have criticized several times the notion, pushed by Berkeley linguist George Lakoff, that the problems liberals have these days can be fixed if they “frame” their issues better. (See here, here, and here.)
Now comes liberal law professor (and advisor to Democrats) Cass Sunstein with yet another attempt at “framing.” Writing in The New Republic, Sunstein criticizes Judge Alito for saying, among other things, that judges
“… should look to the text of the Constitution, and we should look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption.” He also said that “it is the job of a judge, the job of a Supreme Court justice, to interpret the Constitution, not distort the Constitution, not add to the Constitution or subtract from the Constitution.”
According to Sunstein, this is simply warmed over Bork, reflecting a victory for Republicans:
This is a fundamental change, one that signals a huge victory by Republican politicians. To a remarkable extent, Republican leaders have convinced the nation that their goal is to ensure that judges follow the Constitution — and that Democratic politicians want judges to “add to the Constitution or subtract from the Constitution.”
Of course this is a hopelessly inadequate statement of the difference between the two parties. Many Republican politicians want judges to adopt positions that fit less with the Constitution than with the current values of the Republican Party–by, for example, striking down affirmative action programs and campaign finance regulations, protecting commercial advertising, increasing presidential power, invalidating environmental regulations, and developing new safeguards for private property.
But for the confirmation process, what seems to matter is not reality but how it is framed. That process has been successfully un-Borked…. [Emphasis added]
There he goes again. Alas, Prof. Sunstein never describes the “reality” from which Republican framing deviates. Indeed, if he believes “reality” actually exists and and can be described, he displays a confidence and a faith considerably at odds with the views of many prominent Alito critics.
Alas again, Prof. Sunstein implies that it is only Republicans who engage in partisan framing. It is only “Republican politicians,” he claims, who “want judges to adopt positions that fit less with the Constitution than with the current values” of their party. He thus implies that the positions Democrats adopt actually do “fit” with “the Constitution.” In other words — no, in Prof. Sunstein’s own words — Republican positions on, for example,
affirmative action programs and campaign finance regulations, protecting commercial advertising, increasing presidential power, invalidating environmental regulations, and developing new safeguards for private property
do not “fit” with “the Constitution”; it does not reflect “reality but how it is framed.” On the other hand, Prof. Sunstein implicitly argues, Democratic support for affirmative action, restricting political speech, constricting presidential war powers, etc., is not partisan, reflects “reality,” and “fits” with “the Constitution.”
How convenient.
“Alas again, Prof. Sunstein implies that it is only Republicans who engage in partisan framing. It is only “Republican politicians,” he claims, who “want judges to adopt positions that fit less with the Constitution than with the current values” of their party.”
He didn’t say its only republicans who do that. You, on the other hand, did jump to that conclusion.
If anything his statement reads more like a ‘republicans do it too’ than a ‘its really only republicans that do this.’
The civil rights era is over. There are no more great civil rights issues to fight and adjudicate. (And that especially includes gay issues.)
So, Sunstein is a dinosaur who wants to continue to base Democratic party policy on the assumption that 1968 can last forever.
This outlook will condemn the Democratic party to eternal minority statuts.
If you’re a Republican, you can only hope that the Democrats remain obsessed, as is Sunstein, with the belief that the issues of 1968 should be at the top of the heap forever.
Sunstein wants to keep screaming “racist” at the Republicans. Republicans can hardly hope for a better outcome than that the Democrats continue this antiquated ranting.
Do Democrats ever plan to actually come up with an…. idea?
“The civil rights era is over. There are no more great civil rights issues to fight and adjudicate. (And that especially includes gay issues.)”
I’d say there is still plenty of fighting over gay issues. Ask all the bigots promoting their gay marriage amendments to stop if the discussion is over.
actus:
He didn’t say its only republicans who do that. You, on the other hand, did jump to that conclusion.
If anything his statement reads more like a ‘republicans do it too’ than a ‘its really only republicans that do this.’
actus, as you know I’ve disagreed with just about everything you’ve written in comments here, but it never occurred to me, until now, that you may have a reading disability. Go back and read Sunstein’s article, slowly and carefully this time, and come back and tell me if you really believe he’s saying “they all do it/Republicans do it too” or some such. If you believe that, cite the sentence(s) that lead you to a conclusion that, in my view, is totally contradicted by the text. (But now that I think about it, you read the Constitution the same creative way….)
“f you believe that, cite the sentence(s) that lead you to a conclusion that, in my view, is totally contradicted by the text. ”
The passage you gave. Sunstein says that the differences between the parties is of political opinion, not of constitutional theory. That the adequate way of describing the differences is in the policies each is seeking from the judiciary, rather than the simplistic “we follow the law / you don’t.”
Look at how he says that democratic judges are going to face the uphill battle of being on the wrong side of that inadequate dichotomy. Why would that be?
Opposing gay marriage doesn’t make one a “bigot.”
Opposing gay marriage is just a matter of common sense.
And, to elaborate, Republicans can only hope that Democrats continue to defeat themselves by calling ordinary folks who understand that marriage is a sacrament for men and women “bigots”
actus, you probably just created a dozen more Republican voters with that comment. Keep it up.
Well, this confirms it. You really do have trouble reading, since your rendition is not at all what Sunstein says. For example:
Note: Sunstein is not saying that both Republicans and Democrats distort the positions of the other party for partisan reasons. He could have said that, but he didn’t.
And that quote from Sunstein also answers your question about why Democratic judges have an uphill battle, etc. It is because, Sunstein argues, Republicans have succeeded in the political argument of persuading voters that Democrats want to add to or subtract from the Constitution.
Next, Sunstein writes:
Many Republican politicians want judges to adopt positions that fit less with the Constitution than with the current values of the Republican Party….
He doesn’t say both Republicans and Democrats have adopted positions that vary from “reality” and that don’t “fit” with “the Constitution.” He says that many Republican politicians have done that. Maybe some Republicans don’t do that, but presumably no Democrats do that because he never mentions Democrats doing it.
If you can’t see that Sunstein is criticizing Republicans and not Democrats in this article, I can now more easily see why you would reject any version not only of “originalism” but any interpretive method that places any weight at all on the meaning of text.
“Opposing gay marriage doesn’t make one a “bigot.””
Doing it because you think you’re protecting someone’s marriage does.
“actus, you probably just created a dozen more Republican voters with that comment. Keep it up.”
I’m not so concerned here about partisan victories. Just being on the right side of history. How many republicans did LBJ and Kennedy create with civil rights and the fight against segregation? Thousands? millions? Yet, they were correct. Me and the LBJ and so on are ok with taking a party and falling on the sword in order to do what is right. Others will promote bigotry for partisan advantage. That’s the way progress has come, and that’s the way it will continue to come. There will always be those who will exploit current injustice for their benefit.
“Note: Sunstein is not saying that both Republicans and Democrats distort the positions of the other party for partisan reasons. He could have said that, but he didn’t.”
Not explicitly, no. But that is the implication. He says that democrats are accused of X while republicans stand for Not-X. And then he says that the fact is that republicans are X. He repeats two claims — one about the dems and one about the GOP, but only counters one, the one about the GOP. What’s the implication?
“It is because, Sunstein argues, Republicans have succeeded in the political argument of persuading voters that Democrats want to add to or subtract from the Constitution.”
And because of their policy goals, such as protecting privacy. If there were no policy goals, the GOP would not be able to do this.
actus,
Stephen: Opposing gay marriage doesn’t make one a ‘bigot.’
actus: Doing it because you think you’re protecting someone’s marriage does.
Does it really? Are other reasons for opposing gay marriage more understandable, more respectable, less bigoted? And is opposing adultery “because you think you’re protecting someone’s marriage” also bigoted, or what? Or are there grounds for opposition to adultery that take the protection of “someone’s marriage” totally out of the picture and therefore cleanse it of any hint of “bigotry”?
“Are other reasons for opposing gay marriage more understandable, more respectable, less bigoted? And is opposing adultery “because you think you’re protecting someone’s marriage” also bigoted, or what?”
You really can’t see the difference between how adultery hurts marriages [it does], and how gay marriage “hurts” marriages [it doesn’t].
“Or are there grounds for opposition to adultery that take the protection of “someone’s marriage” totally out of the picture and therefore cleanse it of any hint of “bigotry”?”
Seeing as how there is merit to the argument that it hurts marriage, that is the non-bigoted ground.
What I’d really like it is for someone to explain to me how their marriage would be hurt by someone else, say, their cousin, or a complete stranger, getting into a gay marriage.
actus,
Yesterday was the anniversary of my weblog, http://www.HarleysCars.com.
I reposted my most read piece of the year, “It’s a Sin to Tell a Lie.”
I’d suggest that you go read it. Accusing middle class Americans of bigotry against gays is a venomous tactic. In that essay, I describe in some detail the reality of how middle class America responded to the AIDS epidemic.
It really is a sin to tell a lie, Actus. Americans are not bigots.
“Americans are not bigots.”
A bigot thinks that AIDS is for gays, for example.
Tiresome stuff, actus.
AIDS in the U.S. has been, and continues to be, a disease almost entirely of gay men.
The political correct attempt to disguise this has resulted only in more deaths.
Sometimes, actus, you are just the silliest, most sanctimonious human on earth. Laughable.
“AIDS in the U.S. has been, and continues to be, a disease almost entirely of gay men.”
Like I said, a bigot thinks that AIDS is for gays. Of 920 thousand AIDS diagnoses, 600 thousand involve male to male sexual contact. link.
Although, I suppose ‘entirely’ could mean 2/3.
2/3 of all AIDS cases are male to male contact and you are arguing that it doesn’t disproportionately affect gay people?
“Me and the LBJ and so on are ok with taking a party and falling on the sword in order to do what is right. Others will promote bigotry for partisan advantage.”
You do know that LBJ frequently said things about Hispanics that would definitely be considered bigoted today, don’t you? And when you are talking about those promoting bigotry of partisan advantage, I assume you are also talking about those painting people as bigots because they, say, disagree with gay marriage.
It is interesting that to oppose gay marriage, one has to have specific personal reasons for it. For example, to point out that allowing gay marriage opens up for questioning the right to bar any person or persons from marriage as a weakening of the societal concept of marriage would be considered bigoted as well, unless one has personal knowledge of this. It seems like a rather disengenuous argument.
“2/3 of all AIDS cases are male to male contact and you are arguing that it doesn’t disproportionately affect gay people?”
It does disproportionately affect them. The guy said it was entirely of them.
“You do know that LBJ frequently said things about Hispanics that would definitely be considered bigoted today, don’t you?”
Sure. He also killed lots of vietnamese. I don’t think everything he did was right. But he did the right thing, and against the interests of his party, when he worked for civil rights.
“It is interesting that to oppose gay marriage, one has to have specific personal reasons for it”
They could be generalized reasons. Generally, for example, adultery hurts marriage. But generally, gay people getting married hurts no marriages.
Generally, gay people getting married is yucky. So thats’ the bigoted reason.
“For example, to point out that allowing gay marriage opens up for questioning the right to bar any person or persons from marriage as a weakening of the societal concept of marriage would be considered bigoted as well, unless one has personal knowledge of this.”
Why would it do that? The prohibitions against other people getting married are still well grounded, and don’t depend on the exclusion of gay families.
I went home and shot myself last night because you called me a bigot, actus.
Actually, not.
I went home and slept like a baby.
This behavior, the slurs and sanctimonious name calling, mark you even more as a relic of the past. You remind me of nothing more than a Bible pounding evangelical Christian screaming at the sinners when you do it. Although you think you are different, the behavior is precisely the same.
And, it’s backfiring. Every day, I think, more people see this behavior of yours as, quite simply, bad manners.
You need to learn to behave yourself, actus. Especially, if you want to exert any political influence.
The narcissism at the root of the “gay marriage” hysteria is, also, only made all the more apparent by such behavior. You are not a victim of discrimination. You are a childish poser.
“Although you think you are different, the behavior is precisely the same.”
Except they target the people that society casts out. I support the unpopular. That’s why you say its not ‘politica;.’ A pure numbers game tells me that supporting a minority won’t get me victories. But it does get me being right. And unlike others, I do need that to sleep like a baby.
” You are a childish poser.”
Thanks. Mr “AIDS is for gay people.” That’s so 80’s.
You don’t support anybody, actus, and nobody wants your support.
You’re just delusional.
“They could be generalized reasons. Generally, for example, adultery hurts marriage. But generally, gay people getting married hurts no marriages.”
Whether the left likes it, redefining marriage does hurt marriage as a whole because it alters the expectations of society and individuals about what is acceptable. This is why gay marriage is so important to homosexuals. If marriage is redefined as “any 2 people,” the next question one may logically ask is “why only 2?” The answers given by the pro-gay marriage side are ineffective at best (oh, that won’t happen!) and illogical at worst (why not?).
“Why would it do that? The prohibitions against other people getting married are still well grounded, and don’t depend on the exclusion of gay families.”
Why not ask Canada where they are now having a polygamy debate after legalizing gay marriage? I’m sure the argument there, too, was that gay marriage wouldn’t lead to polygamy, etc. because the reasons against it are “well-grounded.”
“Whether the left likes it, redefining marriage does hurt marriage as a whole because it alters the expectations of society and individuals about what is acceptable.”
How does that hurt marriage? I don’t know what expectations you’re talking about. Would straight people be expecting to be in gay marriages? Would they change what it is they want if gay people are also getting married?
“Why not ask Canada where they are now having a polygamy debate after legalizing gay marriage?”
If you want to avoid debates, then you have bigger problems. There’s no problem with the debates. We can still keep prohibitions on marriages involving more than 2 people. And there’s no reason to define it as ‘any 2 people.’ You can define it as gay couples or heterosexual couples.
“If you want to avoid debates, then you have bigger problems.”
Actus, as usual, you are taking the word “debate” out of context. Debate in this case means that there are those, because gay marriage is now legal, who are lobbying for polygamy using the same sorts of arguments. This flies in the face of what gay marriage activists will tell you: that this is a civil rights issue and that just because gay marriage is legalized it does not mean polygamy, etc. will be next. The fact that Canada now has a government study recommending legalizing polygamy.
“There’s no problem with the debates. We can still keep prohibitions on marriages involving more than 2 people.”
For what purpose? If it is a civil rights issue, then why shouldn’t people get to marry whomever they want?
“And there’s no reason to define it as ‘any 2 people.’ You can define it as gay couples or heterosexual couples.”
How else does one define “any 2 people.” Do you know of a 3d sex?
“This flies in the face of what gay marriage activists will tell you: that this is a civil rights issue and that just because gay marriage is legalized it does not mean polygamy, etc. will be next.”
Right. It doesn’t. We can stop at gay marriage. We don’t have to go back to traditional polygamist marriage.
“For what purpose? If it is a civil rights issue, then why shouldn’t people get to marry whomever they want?”
Is that the civil rights issue? or is gay marriage and fighiting discrimination the issue?
‘How else does one define “any 2 people.”‘
Any two people includes father and son, or mother and son. That definition doesn’t work.
We can still keep prohibitions on marriages involving more than 2 people.
Actus, you are a bigot!
“Actus, you are a bigot!”
Surrounded by idiots, it seems.
Whats bigoted about some anti-gay marriage arguments is that they are non-sensical — the ‘protect marriage’ types. Can you think of sensible arguments against polygamy? Then you are not bigoted.
Surrounded by idiots, it seems.
Really now, actus. I would suggest that your language is completely uncalled for. Not only are you a bigot, but you seem to have problems being civil.
There are a number of groups that practice polygamy. Nobody is being forced to be in a polygamous relationship. It is done between consenting adults. Does that argument sound familiar? The fact that you don’t think polygamy is legitimate does not make it so. You reject it out of hand because they are not one of your favored groups. Just in case the definition of a bigot slipped you mind I will refresh your memory. A bigot is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. That is you. Live with it.
“Is that the civil rights issue? or is gay marriage and fighiting discrimination the issue?”
Proponents of gay marriage have frequently made the argument that this is a civil rights issue just like the civil rights movement of the 1960s for equality for black people. Unlike the color of one’s skin which is immutable, one does not have to act on one’s sexual impulses. To call gay marriage a civil rights issue is to insult minorities who have been treated badly for generations because of something they could neither hide nor change.
Please don’t be ignorant, Actus. Polygamists are already using the Lawrence v. Texas case to legalize polygamy. When the Hardwick v. Bowers decision came out in 1986, it could not have been imagined that in less than 20 years the Supreme Court of the U.S. would be saying that homosexuals do indeed have a right to sodomy (of course, this is not embodied in our Constitution. They had to go to “international law” to find this right).
Why will polygamy be next? Because once gay marriage is sanctioned, there will be little stomach for telling people who “love each other” that they cannot marry. Once you get rid of the traditional legal and religious underpinnings of marriage, there simply is no reason for a liberal judge not to allow polygamists the same rights as heterosexuals and homosexuals. And, as I said previously, this IS about demanding society respect their relationships as equal to heterosexuals.
“Unlike the color of one’s skin which is immutable, one does not have to act on one’s sexual impulses”
One also doesn’t have to travel while black. And yet we saw fit to force motels and other businesses to cater to black clients.
“To call gay marriage a civil rights issue is to insult minorities who have been treated badly for generations because of something they could neither hide nor change.”
So gays have to hide or change? What would lead people to think this is about bigotry?
“Once you get rid of the traditional legal and religious underpinnings of marriage, there simply is no reason for a liberal judge not to allow polygamists the same rights as heterosexuals and homosexuals.”
I thikn there’s plenty of reason. You’re not thinking very much if you don’t see the reasons. Specially if we give gay marriage via the legislatures, as opposed to via the courts.
Surrounded by idiots, it seems.
You’re not thinking very much if you don’t see the reasons.
That’s two actus. Are you planning to go for the trifecta?
“One also doesn’t have to travel while black. And yet we saw fit to force motels and other businesses to cater to black clients.”
Actus, you are dodging the issue. Black people DID, in fact, have to travel while black. This was why the courts decided it was an interstate commerce issue which they could regulate.
“So gays have to hide or change? What would lead people to think this is about bigotry?”
No one said they HAD to hide or change. What I said was that, unlike skin color, it is possible for people to be unaware of someone else’s homosexuality. This is the basic difference between homosexuality and skin color when referring to civil rights. This is not about bigotry. It’s about whether or not a characteristic is immutable so that it needs protection under the Constitution like race.
“I thikn there’s plenty of reason.”
I think there’s also plenty of reason not to legalize gay marriage either. And, as I stated before, 20 years ago when Hardwick v. Bowers was decided, no one would have believed in less than 2 decades that the court would suddenly find a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy.
“You’re not thinking very much if you don’t see the reasons.”
As I said, I see PLENTY of reasons, but I also see plenty to stop legalized gay marriage, specifically starting with the breakdown of the traditional family unit, family law, inheritence laws, child custody, etc., etc. These are all things that gay rights organizations want to destroy: traditional concepts of family and the concept of family before the state.
“Specially if we give gay marriage via the legislatures, as opposed to via the courts.”
Given that defense of marriage amendments have succeeded everywhere they’ve been on the ballot, I don’t think you would see gay marriage enacted any time soon. This is why gay marriage advocates want to ram it through the court system, a la abortion and every other liberal notion of the last 40 years. Simply put, it’s much easier to convince 5 justices of your argument (especially when they go on fishing expeditions into international law to find rationales for their opinions) than it is to convince 300 million Americans.
“This is not about bigotry. It’s about whether or not a characteristic is immutable so that it needs protection under the Constitution like race.”
So its about immutability, about gays having the choice to not have relationships. Which I’d say is the same thing as black people having the choice to not travel.
“the court would suddenly find a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy.”
They didn’t find a right. Just no rational relation behind the invasion of privacy that the law is.
“specifically starting with the breakdown of the traditional family unit”
How does this work? What family units are harmed by gays getting married? I can see the argument in no-fault divorce laws, but not in gay marriage.
“These are all things that gay rights organizations want to destroy”
Oh no. Gays don’t want to destroy inheritance and adoption: they want those to stick around for them.
“Given that defense of marriage amendments have succeeded everywhere they’ve been on the ballot”
Not quite. The maine anti-gay amendment was defeated in its legislature, and Vermont has created a marriage like civil union.
“So its about immutability, about gays having the choice to not have relationships. Which I’d say is the same thing as black people having the choice to not travel.”
Actus, you are comparing apples and oranges. Gays can have relationships. We all can. But asking the state to sanction your relationship and afford you all the privileges and rights of marriage, an institution supported by legal framework because of its benefits to society, is different from traveling. Aside from the fact that you have yet to prove how being gay is an immutable characteristic like race as opposed to a behavior.
“They didn’t find a right. Just no rational relation behind the invasion of privacy that the law is.”
The court had previously addressed the same issue in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, but had upheld the challenged Georgia statute, not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.
Lawrence, case number 02-102, explicitly overruled Bowers, which it held viewed the liberty at stake too narrowly. The Lawrence court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that attempt to criminalize homosexual activity between consenting adults acting in private.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
The Court could have invalidated the law based on an equal protection argument (which, in fact, was one of the arguments the plaintiff’s made). However, Kennedy had a broader agenda, which is why he couched the decision, as you say, as a “right to privacy” (another made-up right) issue.
Scalia’s dissent is particularly precient, given the current discussion:
“State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices.”
If you cannot see the way Lawrence leads to invalidation of these proscriptions, then it is because you are being deliberately obtuse (something you’ve already proven with your comparison between gay marriage and traveling).
“Oh no. Gays don’t want to destroy inheritance and adoption: they want those to stick around for them.”
You need to do a little more reading, Actus. Judith Levine has already written about a desire for the destruction of the family unit as it is currently defined. Michael Kinsley has argued against legal recognition of marriage. Stanley Kurtz has noted how gay marriage will alter marriage into nothing more than a series of contracts which can be changed at will. And, yes, this means dramatically changing custody and inheritence laws, as well.
“Not quite. The maine anti-gay amendment was defeated in its legislature, and Vermont has created a marriage like civil union.”
Actually, yes, quite. Everywhere a defense of marriage amendment has been on the ballot, it has passed overwhelmingly. Look it up. It’s one of the reasons the Democrats shrieked that President Bush won re-election. And gay rights activists are not happy with civil unions because they know it isn’t marriage. They want marriage with all the societal recognition that goes with that, forcing everyone to proclaim their equality to heterosexual marriage.
“Gays can have relationships.”
Great! So we’re going to ban discrimination against them because of that right?
“Aside from the fact that you have yet to prove how being gay is an immutable characteristic like race as opposed to a behavior.”
Why? Because you think they’re supposed to choose not to have gay relationships?
“If you cannot see the way Lawrence leads to invalidation of these proscriptions, then it is because you are being deliberately obtuse”
There are differences. Adultery, for example, ruins marriages and families, and that’s a good reason to ban adultery: gay and straight. Gay marriage, and gay relationships, do not ruin marriages and families.
“tanley Kurtz has noted how gay marriage will alter marriage into nothing more than a series of contracts which can be changed at will.”
But he’s working on setting the gay agenda. If anything he’s setting the anti-gay agenda. L
Like I said, gays want access to the same things that promote and protect family units: inheritance, adoption, the works. For some, this is dangerous. For others, its only fair that we not frustrate gay families.
“Actually, yes, quite. Everywhere a defense of marriage amendment has been on the ballot, it has passed overwhelmingly.”
In popular elections, yes. But not in legislatures, which is what I was talking about.
And Don’t ge me started on that defense of marriage amendment. You know that it does more than ruin gay relationships, also striking at straight ones.
Its the same irrational prudish notions that gave us the mess of prohibtion all over again.
“Great! So we’re going to ban discrimination against them because of that right?”
What discrimination?
“Why? Because you think they’re supposed to choose not to have gay relationships?”
Choosing to have a relationship is not an immutable characteristic as race is, Actus. You know this but, bent on making the inaccurate comparision, keep trying to say these are the same things. They are not. I may choose to have a relationship or not. I cannot choose my skin color.
“There are differences. Adultery, for example, ruins marriages and families, and that’s a good reason to ban adultery: gay and straight. Gay marriage, and gay relationships, do not ruin marriages and families.”
The same arguments made for gay marriages can be made for a variety of other types of relationships: that they are “personal” and “don’t affect anyone but themselves,” etc. That you choose not to see how these arguments can play out says more about your personal agenda.
“But he’s working on setting the gay agenda. If anything he’s setting the anti-gay agenda.”
Why did you not address the other authors I quoted?
“Like I said, gays want access to the same things that promote and protect family units: inheritance, adoption, the works. For some, this is dangerous. For others, its only fair that we not frustrate gay families.”
What they want is for Americans to have to acknowledge their relationships as being equal in every way with heterosexuals. This demand is already creating problems (such as the U of F questionaire demanding that one have sex to be defined as in a relationship) and will create far more for family courts, the tax system, governmental policies, religious freedoms, etc., as well as leading to a host of other groups deciding they, too, should have these “rights” and not be “discriminated against.”
“In popular elections, yes. But not in legislatures, which is what I was talking about.”
Of course you are because a popular election is an even better indicator of public sentiment than what legislatures do.
“And Don’t ge me started on that defense of marriage amendment. You know that it does more than ruin gay relationships, also striking at straight ones.”
Exactly how is defining marriage as a man and a woman harmful to heterosexual marriage? Obviously, the anti-defense of marriage people haven’t been able to muster up an argument yet.
“Its the same irrational prudish notions that gave us the mess of prohibtion all over again.”
Better than the irrational leftist notions that gave us no-fault divorce.
“Choosing to have a relationship is not an immutable characteristic as race is, Actus. You know this but, bent on making the inaccurate comparision”
You’re mixing the analogy. Race is analogous to sexual orientation. Having a relationship is analogous to travel. Its ‘inaccurate’ because you’re not getting it.
“The same arguments made for gay marriages can be made for a variety of other types of relationships: that they are “personal” and “don’t affect anyone but themselves,” etc.”
And there are arguments against those arguments that are stronger against relationships other than gay ones.
“Why did you not address the other authors I quoted?”
Because I don’t know who they are.
“This demand is already creating problems (such as the U of F questionaire demanding that one have sex to be defined as in a relationship)”
They should not make that demand. It would be simpler if gays could just get married, and then we don’t have to have this whole rigmarole of ‘parnership.’
“Of course you are because a popular election is an even better indicator of public sentiment than what legislatures do.”
I don’t think its that simple.
“Exactly how is defining marriage as a man and a woman harmful to heterosexual marriage?”
The DOMA does more than that. It has one sentence that does the above. Then it has a second sentence that frustrates all unmarried people: gay or straight, in how they organize their personal lives. This is one example of the failure of plesbicites: the voting is being done by people who think as you do, wrongly, as opposed to being correct.
“Better than the irrational leftist notions that gave us no-fault divorce.”
How much does it burn you that red states have higher divorce rates?
“You’re mixing the analogy. Race is analogous to sexual orientation. Having a relationship is analogous to travel. Its ‘inaccurate’ because you’re not getting it.”
No, Actus, you are mixing the analogy as I pointed out in the last 3 posts. Race is immutable. Behavior is not. “Sexual orientation” is the term you are using to try to equate a behavior (with whom one has a relationship) with an immutable characteristic (skin color).
“And there are arguments against those arguments that are stronger against relationships other than gay ones.”
And 20 years ago, the arguments against gay marriage were considered quite strong, as well. But it has taken less than a generation for some to start arguing for gay marriage.
“Because I don’t know who they are.”
You don’t know who Michael Kinsley is? That’s quite interesting.
“They should not make that demand. It would be simpler if gays could just get married, and then we don’t have to have this whole rigmarole of ‘parnership.'”
Gay marriage is a demand that society accept their relationships as equal to heterosexual marriage.
“I don’t think its that simple.”
This is understandable that you wouldn’t think democracy is that simple.
“The DOMA does more than that. It has one sentence that does the above. Then it has a second sentence that frustrates all unmarried people: gay or straight, in how they organize their personal lives.”
This is the red herring put out by the groups in favor of gay marriage. This has never been shown to be the case in any state with a defense of marriage act.
“How much does it burn you that red states have higher divorce rates?”
What burns me is that no-fault divorce, an idea designed to free and protect women’s rights by liberals actually harms women and children.
“Race is immutable. Behavior is not”
I know. travelling is a behavior. So is having a relationship.
“And 20 years ago, the arguments against gay marriage were considered quite strong, as well. But it has taken less than a generation for some to start arguing for gay marriage”
So?
“You don’t know who Michael Kinsley is? That’s quite interesting.”
The name rings a bell, but I don’t know who he is.
“Gay marriage is a demand that society accept their relationships as equal to heterosexual marriage.”
Society doesn’t think that all heterosexual marriages are “equal” — at least in terms of social opprobrium.
“This has never been shown to be the case in any state with a defense of marriage act.”
The DOMA’s are new. We don’t expect that its effects are fully seen yet. But we can read the thing.
In Ohio last year a judge invalidated a domestic violence law that punished violence in a co-habitation setting more than in a regular non-domestic setting. The judge did this the law was giving ‘marriage-like’ protection to that co-habitation.
If this is not an issue, remove the second sentence. You still have the definition of marriage, which you think is all that is going on. Nothing will change for you right?
“What burns me is that no-fault divorce, an idea designed to free and protect women’s rights by liberals actually harms women and children.”
Must be all those liberals in red states getting all those divorces.
http://myauthority.com/amateur/free-amateur-group-sex-photos.html – free amateur group sex photos http://myauthority.com/amateur/free-amateur-group-sex-photos.html
http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/gambling-nfl-hat.html – gambling nfl hat http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/gambling-nfl-hat.html
http://myauthority.com/poker/online-poker-room-deposits.html – online poker room deposits http://myauthority.com/poker/online-poker-room-deposits.html
http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/betting-basketball-online-slots.html – betting basketball online slots http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/betting-basketball-online-slots.html
http://myauthority.com/big-cock/big-huge-cocks-huge-man-pecs.html – big huge cocks huge man pecs http://myauthority.com/big-cock/big-huge-cocks-huge-man-pecs.html
http://myauthority.com/movies/xxx-asain-dvd.html – xxx asain dvd http://myauthority.com/movies/xxx-asain-dvd.html
http://www.20six.co.uk/eJNM-free-galleries-of-cumshots/ – eJNM free galleries of cumshots http://www.20six.co.uk/eJNM-free-galleries-of-cumshots/
http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/soccer-shoes-stardust-sport.html – soccer shoes stardust sport http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/soccer-shoes-stardust-sport.html
http://myauthority.com/pennis-enlargement/emedicine-syncope.html – emedicine syncope http://myauthority.com/pennis-enlargement/emedicine-syncope.html
http://myauthority.com/gays/homosexuality-cause.html – homosexuality cause http://myauthority.com/gays/homosexuality-cause.html
http://myauthority.com/sex-toys/dildo-girl-sex-hot-young.html – dildo girl sex hot young http://myauthority.com/sex-toys/dildo-girl-sex-hot-young.html
http://myauthority.com/soma/overnight-soma.html – overnight soma http://myauthority.com/soma/overnight-soma.html
http://myauthority.com/mature/mature-marylou-tgp.html – mature marylou tgp http://myauthority.com/mature/mature-marylou-tgp.html
http://myauthority.com/movies/mpegs-of-free-oral-sex.html – mpegs of free oral sex http://myauthority.com/movies/mpegs-of-free-oral-sex.html
http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/soccer-betting-book-book.html – soccer betting book book http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/soccer-betting-book-book.html
http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/playing-baseball-ncaa-regionals.html – playing baseball ncaa regionals http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/playing-baseball-ncaa-regionals.html
http://myauthority.com/bdsm/bondage-gag.html – bondage gag http://myauthority.com/bdsm/bondage-gag.html
http://myauthority.com/mature/mature-nude-german-women.html – mature nude german women http://myauthority.com/mature/mature-nude-german-women.html
http://myauthority.com/gays/homo-georgicus.html – homo georgicus http://myauthority.com/gays/homo-georgicus.html
http://myauthority.com/bondage/tattoo-bdsm.html – tattoo bdsm http://myauthority.com/bondage/tattoo-bdsm.html
http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/world-cup-soccer-sport.html – world cup soccer sport http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/world-cup-soccer-sport.html
http://myauthority.com/asian/japanese-temples.html – japanese temples http://myauthority.com/asian/japanese-temples.html
http://myauthority.com/ebony/ebony-girls-free-clips.html – ebony girls free clips http://myauthority.com/ebony/ebony-girls-free-clips.html
http://myauthority.com/hardcore/free-hardcore-fucking-milf-movies.html – free hardcore fucking milf movies http://myauthority.com/hardcore/free-hardcore-fucking-milf-movies.html
http://myauthority.com/pennis-enlargement/Pro-Solution-Penis-Enhancement.html – Pro Solution Penis Enhancement http://myauthority.com/pennis-enlargement/Pro-Solution-Penis-Enhancement.html
http://myauthority.com/poker/gambling-internet-pharmacy-finance-insurance-adult.html – gambling internet pharmacy finance insurance adult http://myauthority.com/poker/gambling-internet-pharmacy-finance-insurance-adult.html
http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/no-download-directory-com-sports-wagering.html – no download directory com sports wagering http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/no-download-directory-com-sports-wagering.html
http://myauthority.com/amateur/amateur-exhibitionist-picture-gallery.html – amateur exhibitionist picture gallery http://myauthority.com/amateur/amateur-exhibitionist-picture-gallery.html
http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/online-games-free-information.html – online games free information http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/online-games-free-information.html
http://myauthority.com/paris-hilton/paris-hilton-sex-tape-free-clip.html – paris hilton sex tape free clip http://myauthority.com/paris-hilton/paris-hilton-sex-tape-free-clip.html
http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/download-online-basketball-gambling.html – download online basketball gambling http://myauthority.com/casino-gambling/download-online-basketball-gambling.html
WBR suVrMqjGRpShvAiHl
http://www.myauthority.com/latina/latina-mpegs.html – latina mpegs http://www.myauthority.com/latina/latina-mpegs.html
http://www.myauthority.com/casino-gambling/hockey-casablanca-sport-book.html – hockey casablanca sport book http://www.myauthority.com/casino-gambling/hockey-casablanca-sport-book.html
http://www.myauthority.com/mature/ebony-mature-sex.html – ebony mature sex http://www.myauthority.com/mature/ebony-mature-sex.html
http://www.myauthority.com/poker/keyword-internet-poker.html – keyword internet poker http://www.myauthority.com/poker/keyword-internet-poker.html
http://www.myauthority.com/blowjob/blowjobs-by-black-women.html – blowjobs by black women http://www.myauthority.com/blowjob/blowjobs-by-black-women.html
http://www.myauthority.com/casino-gambling/casinos-in-atlantic-city.html – casinos in atlantic city http://www.myauthority.com/casino-gambling/casinos-in-atlantic-city.html
http://www.myauthority.com/anal/rimming-movie-amateur.html – rimming movie amateur http://www.myauthority.com/anal/rimming-movie-amateur.html
http://www.myauthority.com/bbw/fat-girls-in-thongs.html – fat girls in thongs http://www.myauthority.com/bbw/fat-girls-in-thongs.html
http://www.myauthority.com/shaved/shaved-asian-pussy.html – shaved asian pussy http://www.myauthority.com/shaved/shaved-asian-pussy.html
http://www.myauthority.com/casino-gambling/casino-gambling-washington.html – casino gambling washington http://www.myauthority.com/casino-gambling/casino-gambling-washington.html
http://www.myauthority.com/shemale/transvestite-skirt.html – transvestite skirt http://www.myauthority.com/shemale/transvestite-skirt.html
http://www.myauthority.com/Celebrities/sexy-celebrity-wallpaper.html – sexy celebrity wallpaper http://www.myauthority.com/Celebrities/sexy-celebrity-wallpaper.html
http://www.myauthority.com/bigtits/big-boobs-amatuer.html – big boobs amatuer http://www.myauthority.com/bigtits/big-boobs-amatuer.html
http://www.myauthority.com/amateur/amatuer-women-naked.html – amatuer women naked http://www.myauthority.com/amateur/amatuer-women-naked.html
http://www.myauthority.com/Celebrities/britney-spears-fuck.html – britney spears fuck http://www.myauthority.com/Celebrities/britney-spears-fuck.html
http://www.myauthority.com/mature/mature-amateur-phone-sex.html – mature amateur phone sex http://www.myauthority.com/mature/mature-amateur-phone-sex.html
http://www.myauthority.com/smoking/smoking-age.html – smoking age http://www.myauthority.com/smoking/smoking-age.html
http://www.myauthority.com/poker/software-pc-poker.html – software pc poker http://www.myauthority.com/poker/software-pc-poker.html
http://www.myauthority.com/anal/how-to-have-analsex.html – how to have analsex http://www.myauthority.com/anal/how-to-have-analsex.html
http://www.myauthority.com/amateur/free-adult-amateur-movies.html – free adult amateur movies http://www.myauthority.com/amateur/free-adult-amateur-movies.html
http://www.myauthority.com/bondage/gay-bondage-pictures-free.html – gay bondage pictures free http://www.myauthority.com/bondage/gay-bondage-pictures-free.html
http://www.myauthority.com/casino-gambling/gambling-nfl-com.html – gambling nfl com http://www.myauthority.com/casino-gambling/gambling-nfl-com.html
http://www.myauthority.com/blowjob/handjob-blowjob-asian.html – handjob blowjob asian http://www.myauthority.com/blowjob/handjob-blowjob-asian.html
http://www.myauthority.com/blowjob/beautiful-women-sucking-cock.html – beautiful women sucking cock http://www.myauthority.com/blowjob/beautiful-women-sucking-cock.html
http://www.myauthority.com/movies/sexy-nympho-free-big-porn-movies-sex-videos-pussy-fucking.html – sexy nympho free big porn movies sex videos pussy fucking http://www.myauthority.com/movies/sexy-nympho-free-big-porn-movies-sex-videos-pussy-fucking.html
http://www.myauthority.com/asian/torrent-asian-xxx.html – torrent asian xxx http://www.myauthority.com/asian/torrent-asian-xxx.html
http://www.myauthority.com/bigtits/big-boobs-photo-gallery.html – big boobs photo gallery http://www.myauthority.com/bigtits/big-boobs-photo-gallery.html
http://www.myauthority.com/hairy/hairy-black-women.html – hairy black women http://www.myauthority.com/hairy/hairy-black-women.html
http://www.myauthority.com/casino-gambling/ga-casino.html – ga casino http://www.myauthority.com/casino-gambling/ga-casino.html
http://www.myauthority.com/casino-gambling/playing-bettingnhl.html – playing bettingnhl http://www.myauthority.com/casino-gambling/playing-bettingnhl.html
http://www.myauthority.com/casino-gambling/1-person-card-game-rules.html – 1 person card game rules http://www.myauthority.com/casino-gambling/1-person-card-game-rules.html
WBR hDVkUbjKpfrAsIFQY
blinding white like a million cameras flashing at once Then less online cqsinos Typed by: rghryder00@aolcom.