The California Proposition 8 Case: Olson and Boies

[micatala]

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02262010/profile.html


Bill Moyers interviewed Theodore Olson and David Boies, the chief lawyers handling the suit against California's Proposition 8, this past Friday on PBS. Prop 8 was the ballot initiative banning gay marriage in CA that narrowly passed in the fall of 2008.

Olson is a prominent conservative, famous for handling the Republican case in Bush V. Gore.

Boies is on the opposite side of the political spectrum, and was on the opposite side of the Bush v. Gore case.

They are teaming up to represent one male and one female same-sex couples, a case that is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.

I would certainly recommend the full interview if you have time.


One main point of their legal strategy is to hammer home that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is a fundamental individual right, and that extending this right to gays is not creating a new right, but simply treating gays equally with respect to an already firmly established right.

Conservatives, just like liberals, rely on the Supreme Court to protect the rule of law, to protect our liberties, to look at a law and decide whether or not it fits within the Constitution. And I think the point that's really important here, when you're thinking about judicial activism, is that this is not a new right. Nobody is saying, 'Go find in the Constitution the right to get married.' Everybody, unanimous Supreme Court, says there's a right to get married, a fundamental right to get married. The question is whether you can discriminate against certain people based on their sexual orientation. And the issue of prohibiting discrimination has never in my view been looked as a test of judicial activism. That's not liberal, that's not conservative. That's not Republican or Democrat. That's simply an American Constitutional civil right.

They noted that the Supreme Court has said that even prison inmates cannot be prevented from being married.


In the interview, they went on to pretty well demolish any legal justification for Proposition 8. Of course, they still have to win their case, and eventually in front of the SCOTUS.


Questions for debate:

1) Are Olson and Boies correct. Should the suit go forward regardless of the risk of losing?

2) How good is their case?

3) Are the likely to win?




The suit itself is entitled Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, even though neither the governor nor his attorney general are going to defend the proposition. The AG even noted he felt Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

See http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/ou ... rzenegger/
for more background.


See http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... act_talbot
for a New Yorker article on the suit.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 147:

>disputed study<
Did you think I wrote that?

Submitting something for examination is taking ownership ('writing') of that something for purposes of debate. When one submits dubious data, their claims can be considered dubious.

Arguing about promiscuity is nothing more than projecting one's morality onto others. I personally know many heterosexual individuals and couples who engage in promiscuous sex, both inside and outside of marriage.

Spin all you want. Here's more: http://www.narth.com/docs/reporton.html

From that site's banner:

NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care, and the right of professionals to offer that care.

Now, let's see what the American Psychological Association has to allow:

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.

So, I'd be weary of a site that ostensibly promotes the treatment of a 'disease' that is non-existent. The motive of NARTH in presenting data on an issue that is clearly morality based is questionable.

8<

Is it your position gays are no more promiscous than heterosexuals?

It is my position it doesn't matter regarding the rights and freedoms of individuals to live their lives according to their consciences. This is nothing more than a red herring attempt to prevent homosexuals from marrying - a right and privilege afforded to most or all heterosexuals.

So a gay blood relative, say the brother of a deceased father, should be allowed to raise the child with no objection from you?

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

It's an "unconventional" form of raising a kid, which unconventional is one of your objections. Would you prevent a gay person from raising their own kin? The question addresses motives for disallowing gay marriage, as the OP seeks to understand why homosexuals should be prevented from doing that which so many others are allowed.

Ideally, children should have a mother and father. Is that a religously based opinion to you?

Too often it is. As I pointed out in a previous post which East of Eden never addressed, there are more than a few families with female and male "role models" that are anything but.

I would prefer a child to have a mother and father. You're talking about extremely rare sub-optimal situations vs. opening the floodgates to sub-optimal situations.

Who makes the determination as to what is optimal?

Doesn't "loving, doting parent" create an "optimal"?

All I see in the 'male and female parent is best' argument is a relatively sexist one.

8<

How about a brother and sister who want to marry?...

Go ahead, but place a ban on producing offspring because such close bloodlines can be shown to significantly increase chances of disabilities in offspring.

A 12 year old who wants to marry?

That'n was legal not too long ago. In our more 'enlightened' age we understand such young children seldom have the capacity of informed consent, thus bans in this regard.

My point is I'm sure there is a proposed marriage arrangement you would oppose, for non-religious reasons.

Only between or among the 'non-able to give informed consent'. Marry who you wish, as long as the government is doling out privileges for marriage, it should not be in the morality business.

When you post "That's your opinion" with no accompanying arguments, reasoning, rebuttals, refutations, or anything at all but that facile dismissal, it means precisely NOTHING.

In your opinion.

"Now that's funny right there, I don't care who ya are."

Such is still somewhat futile in debate, where we "seriously" seek to understand one another's positions. "In your opinion" does little to negate or confirm what one has presented, opinion or not.

8<

The complaint is that some Christians want to tell EVERYONE how to live out THEIR lives BY FORCE OF LAW, whether they're Christians or not. You think that's what "religious freedom" means. That's rather like saying "Freedom of Speech" means you should be free only to say things that I agree with. It's ridiculous on its face.

My excersing religious freedom doesn't negate anyone else's.

Unless that person's a/religious position is they should be able to marry the person they love.

Voting to block another's a/religious freedom is impacting their a/religious freedom. It can be no other way.

Right out front: Do you think Muslims, even in Muslim nations, should be able to prohibit, or dictate the practices of, other religions? That's what you're advocating for this country.

What religion is that where gay marriage is integral to it?

Nice dodge, and a very familiar Christian tactic on this site. Notice the question asks whether one religion should restrict another, not whether a religion considers gay marriage. Granted, the OP is about gay marriage, but the issue the referenced quote refers to is the broad question of where one religion's position should prevail over all other religious positions.

It is clear to me the referenced quote is getting directly at the heart of how so many Christians perceive their position - in a dogmatic, uncompromising, oppressive fashion, in total disregard to the respect of the rights and freedoms of others.

I think anyone should be able to vote their conscience, even CNorman, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.

"Anyone should be able to vote to suppress the rights and freedoms of others".

The very issue here is the violation of the Constitution, where the government offers freedoms and privileges to one group, and disallows them to another on the basis of them having sex with another consenting adult.

8<

Just to play devil's advocate, what if said 13 year old girl swore she WANTED to get married to the old guy?

We've made societal determination that girls of such a young age can't give informed consent.

And you know what? You don't get to deny basic human rights to other people because your religious beliefs demand it, either.

I'm not advocating that, are you?

Credibility is stretched when one rightfully declares they should vote their conscience, and that conscience is religious, but they don't use religion to inform their vote.

I DO condemn ANYONE, of ANY religion, or none, who wishes to force their views and practices on others. That absolutely is not the same thing. I condemn those atheists who want to outlaw parents teaching their children religion, for instance, which comes up from time to time. That's a huge violation of human rights and religious freedom, and is also absolutely a case of one group trying to force their beliefs and practices on other people who don't share them.

I disagree, and as said before, all laws are an imposition on others who don't agree with it. The whole Obama administration is forcing beliefs and practices I don't believe in on me.

I generally agree with both statements. It's plenty fair to say we seek to impose on others. The question then is how can we impose the least.

I'm not saying that about you, but I do disagree with your assertion that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional due to the religious angle.

Regardless of whether religiously based or not, the law is unfair, and unconstitutionally so on the grounds it preserves for some what it denies others.

That being said, there have been way too many radical gays who DO attack Christians, to the point of disrupting services. That in my view is a hate crime. See http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=80743

Agreed. I'd much prefer folks were left alone in their churches, with the obvious caveats of promotion of violence, etc.

And by the way, if they just want to get married, I think we can assume that promiscuity isn't on their agenda.

That's usually the way it works with heterosexuals, I'm not convinced it does with gays.

What does promiscuity have to do with folks seeking to marry one another anyway? If the parties involved agree to an open marriage I see no insurmountable problems.

I think it a bit unfair to say a homosexual wouldn't be telling the truth if they said they'd commit to the one individual. Beyond that, it's unfair to expect one group to conform to whatever "promiscuity (morality) levels" one may affirm for heterosexuals. These are two different dynamics, even if they share commonalities.

Does that mean "force everyone to live like you think Christians should"?

Who is forcing gays to stop their chosen lifestyle?

Those who prevent their attempting to enjoy the "married to the one they love lifestyle".

(edit for clarity)
(2nd edit for tags)

[East of Eden]

Arguing about promiscuity is nothing more than projecting one's morality onto others.

Something we all do.

From that site's banner:

NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care, and the right of professionals to offer that care.

Now, let's see what the American Psychological Association has to allow:

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.

So, I'd be weary of a site that ostensibly promotes the treatment of a 'disease' that is non-existent. The motive of NARTH in presenting data on an issue that is clearly morality based is questionable.

If individuals with same-sex feelings want treatment to change that, why is that a problem? As for the APA, they long ago have bought into the gay agenda. Scientist are no less likely to be ideologically driven than non-scientists.

It is my position it doesn't matter regarding the rights and freedoms of individuals to live their lives according to their consciences.

It was brought up to see if we can at least get agreement on the promiscuity of homosexuals, something that far from being a 'smear', is ackowledged by gays themselves.

Too often it is. As I pointed out in a previous post which East of Eden never addressed, there are more than a few families with female and male "role models" that are anything but.

Which proves what?

Who makes the determination as to what is optimal?

Doesn't "loving, doting parent" create an "optimal"?

All I see in the 'male and female parent is best' argument is a relatively sexist one.

For which sex?

Interesting article on a liberal Democrat who also believes gay marriage undermines the family. Note he is not coming from a religious perspective:


Blankenhorn: A family guy with a cause
By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY
March 14, 2007

David Blankenhorn may be best known as an advocate for the importance of fathers, but the 51-year-old think-tank founder and author is about to step onto the firing line with a much more controversial issue: gay marriage.

Media Appearances The Harvard-educated Mississippi native is a former VISTA volunteer and community organizer who has made a career of thinking about big issues and telling others what he believes. He's written scores of op-ed pieces and essays, co-edited eight books and written two: the 1995 Fatherless America, which attributes many of society's ills to the lack of involvement of fathers in children's lives, and now, THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE. In it, he argues kids need both a mother and a father, and because same-sex marriage can't provide that, it's bad for society and kids.

"We're either going to go in the direction of viewing marriage as a purely private relationship between two people that's defined by those people, or we're going to try to strengthen and maintain marriage as our society's most pro-child institution," he says.

He may sound like a conservative Christian, but Blankenhorn says he's a liberal Democrat.

"I'm not condemning homosexuality. I'm not condemning committed gay relationships," he says. But "the best institutional friend that children have is marriage, and if grownups make a mess of it, the children are going to suffer."

Blankenhorn's attempts to raise consciousness about the importance of fathers led him to help inspire the creation of the National Fatherhood Initiative, a non-partisan group promoting responsible fatherhood. For 20 years, he has focused attention on the fallout of what he sees as a breakdown in the family.

He bristles when people call his think tank conservative; he wants to look deeply at America's core values, and he sees the Manhattan-based Institute for American Values, founded in 1987, as a catalyst for analysis and debate among those with differing views.

The institute's budget of some $1.5 million largely comes from foundations, corporations and individual donations, which support studies, conferences, books and other publications.

"People who say we're a conservative organization are just trying to call us names because they think it'll stigmatize us," he says, clearly rankled that his motives are so often misunderstood.

But as much as his passion for families impresses those who know his work, his blunt outspokenness can be off-putting to people on both sides of the political spectrum. He even criticizes the marriage movement, of which he is considered one of the founders, saying it has "stagnated."

"It's one of the reasons I wrote the book," he says. "I want to stir the pot as much as I can."

Colleagues praise him
"My impression of this guy is he's really devoted his life to family issues and would probably do that if no one paid him at all," says Jonathan Rauch, a senior writer at National Journal magazine and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution who has been on opposite sides of the podium with Blankenhorn.

"David has a lot of respect for ideas," says Maggie Gallagher, a former affiliate scholar with the institute and a strong opponent of same-sex marriage. He "created a new niche. He pulled together top scholars from a variety of disciplines concerned about family fragmentation who were not part of the Religious Right, and he gave them a home."

Sociology professor Judith Stacey of New York University says some in the family field view Blankenhorn as a "right-wing political advocate." But "I see him as more complicated than that."

So does William Galston, a domestic policy adviser in the Clinton administration and a senior fellow at Brookings.

"My impression is on matters of civil rights and economics and social justice, he's the same warm-hearted Southern liberal he was when he started," Galston says. "It might be more accurate to say a strand of thinking about the family and the culture that in contemporary circumstances is regarded as conservative is something that's become a stronger part of his thinking."

Some academics, including Stacey, suggest the institute lacks objectivity because its work is not subject to scholarly peer review.

Blankenhorn rebuffs such claims.

"Almost all our work is done in teams of people. We review each other's work constantly," he says. "So it is utter hogwash for somebody to say something like that."

Says Stacey: "I'm one of his favorite targets. We have opposing views on the relationship between social science research about families and public policy about families. Not only do we disagree about the policies, but we disagree about what the research says."

Theodora Ooms, a consultant on family policy who has known Blankenhorn since the mid-1980s, calls him "relentless. He says he is open-minded, but I find him rather rigid and close-minded."

Blankenhorn admits he has a "pushy" side. "I've had fallings-out over differing opinions about what was best to do about what we were working on at the time " not too many of them, though," he says.

"If he really disagrees with something, you'll know it," says Galston. "I've never had a problem with it, but I suspect others may."

Blankenhorn wasn't always such a polarizing figure.

His sixth-grade teacher chastised him for talking out of turn and told him he was a "leader child."

"She said, 'If you do things, the others will follow you,' " he recalls. "That was such a dramatic moment for me. I've wanted to play that role and have tried my best to play that role since I was a kid."

He originally planned a think tank for community organizers, but he became increasingly frustrated in bringing about social change and decided civil society and the family were areas where he could have an impact. Now, two decades later, the institute has broadened its scope to include projects on Islam's relationships with the West and an examination of thrift as an American core value.

Growing up in the South
Blankenhorn says he avoided the gay marriage issue for years and didn't get into civil unions in his book because it's not directly linked to his concern over marriage as "society's most pro-child institution." He has been clear about other family issues: Marriage is good for kids. Voluntary single-motherhood isn't. Neither is divorce.

He says he couldn't skirt same-sex marriage any longer because allowing gays to marry and form families conflicts with children's right to know and be raised by their two biological parents.

His book also cites a new analysis he did on 35 nations from the 2002 International Social Survey Programme, which shows marriage is weakest in nations where support for gay marriage is strongest.

"I'm not saying one causes the other. I'm just saying they go together," he says. "If you do support marriage and want it to be this robust social institution, then you ought to think twice about saying you're for gay marriage."

Blankenhorn's childhood in Jackson, Miss., where his parents still live, emphasized family and church. His father worked in insurance, and Blankenhorn says he was a role model; his mother ran the church Sunday school. Both were Presbyterian deacons and elders. Blankenhorn played sports, was president of his freshman class and of his church youth group.

The family's church was the first in his area to allow black worshipers. Racial prejudice and public school desegregation had a profound impact on him, causing him at age 15 to try to bridge racial rifts. He founded the Mississippi Community Service Corps, which recruited black and white high school students to join together to tutor elementary school kids.

When his father's job transferred him to Salem, Va., in Blankenhorn's junior year of high school, he re-created the service corps by contacting all the church youth groups in the Roanoke/Salem area.

Blankenhorn hadn't planned to go out of state for college, but he ran into a former student from his old high school who urged him to apply to Harvard. That student, Carey Ramos, now a New York attorney who has represented the recording industry in online copyright cases, says Blankenhorn impressed him.

"He was clearly very bright and articulate," Ramos says. "What struck me was how determined he was and how he had the qualities of a leader. I thought he would wind up doing interesting things."

Go ahead, but place a ban on producing offspring because such close bloodlines can be shown to significantly increase chances of disabilities in offspring.

So you are making a non-religious argument against this form of marriage?

That'n was legal not too long ago. In our more 'enlightened' age we understand such young children seldom have the capacity of informed consent, thus bans in this regard.

Another non-religious objection to a form of marriage.

Such is still somewhat futile in debate, where we "seriously" seek to understand one another's positions. "In your opinion" does little to negate or confirm what one has presented, opinion or not.

It is a way of pointing out that many statements on this forum are opinion, not fact, including me.

Unless that person's a/religious position is they should be able to marry the person they love.

You've already pointed out examples above where people shouldn't be able to marry the person they love.

Nice dodge, and a very familiar Christian tactic on this site. Notice the question asks whether one religion should restrict another, not whether a religion considers gay marriage. Granted, the OP is about gay marriage, but the issue the referenced quote refers to is the broad question of where one religion's position should prevail over all other religious positions.

It is clear to me the referenced quote is getting directly at the heart of how so many Christians perceive their position - in a dogmatic, uncompromising, oppressive fashion, in total disregard to the respect of the rights and freedoms of others.

And I will say again, all laws are an imposition of someone's morality on others who disagree.

The very issue here is the violation of the Constitution, where the government offers freedoms and privileges to one group, and disallows them to another on the basis of them having sex with another consenting adult.

Such alleged Constitutional violation has yet to be determined, and anyway I thought you believed that to be just an ancient document that shouldn't constrict us?

We've made societal determination that girls of such a young age can't give informed consent.

And in CA and many other states we have made a societal determination that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Credibility is stretched when one rightfully declares they should vote their conscience, and that conscience is religious, but they don't use religion to inform their vote.

So what if it is? That is truly an extremist position. I don't believe in the separation of church and mind.

Regardless of whether religiously based or not, the law is unfair, and unconstitutionally so on the grounds it preserves for some what it denies others.

Unconstitutional in your opinion.

What does promiscuity have to do with folks seeking to marry one another anyway? If the parties involved agree to an open marriage I see no insurmountable problems.

From a practical standpoint it doesn't produce stable marriages, which kids need.

Those who prevent their attempting to enjoy the "married to the one they love lifestyle".

Again, you've shown two examples above where you prevent people from enjoying being "married to the one they love ".

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 150:

Arguing about promiscuity is nothing more than projecting one's morality onto others.

Something we all do.

Fair 'nuff, except for that whole restricting the rights and freedoms of others because one objects on moral grounds.

If individuals with same-sex feelings want treatment to change that, why is that a problem? As for the APA, they long ago have bought into the gay agenda. Scientist are no less likely to be ideologically driven than non-scientists.

It's not a problem to want to change, it is a problem to present a biased source and data.

It is my position it doesn't matter regarding the rights and freedoms of individuals to live their lives according to their consciences.

It was brought up to see if we can at least get agreement on the promiscuity of homosexuals, something that far from being a 'smear', is ackowledged by gays themselves.

I see nothing here to negate my position. Whether one wants to carry on with one or a hundred and one is their own business.

Too often it is. As I pointed out in a previous post which East of Eden never addressed, there are more than a few families with female and male "role models" that are anything but.

Which proves what?

See the post you seem to have skipped over or read without response.

Who makes the determination as to what is optimal?
Doesn't "loving, doting parent" create an "optimal"?
All I see in the 'male and female parent is best' argument is a relatively sexist one.

For which sex?...>reference to David Blankenhorn<

I'll take that as "all who agree with me are experts in the field".

Go ahead, but place a ban on producing offspring because such close bloodlines can be shown to significantly increase chances of disabilities in offspring.

So you are making a non-religious argument against this form of marriage?

A scientific argument. Whether it aligns with other folks' a/religious beliefs is on them.

That'n was legal not too long ago. In our more 'enlightened' age we understand such young children seldom have the capacity of informed consent, thus bans in this regard.

Another non-religious objection to a form of marriage.

Based on a reasonable and logical conclusion drawn from psychology. A child of thirteen is not generally sufficiently mature to understand what all is involved with marriage.

Such is still somewhat futile in debate, where we "seriously" seek to understand one another's positions. "In your opinion" does little to negate or confirm what one has presented, opinion or not.

It is a way of pointing out that many statements on this forum are opinion, not fact, including me.

Plenty fair, and I agree to much of that there "opinion spoutin'" myself.

That said, surely you'd agree that just saying something is opinion doesn't really show that opinion to be incorrect or correct.

Unless that person's a/religious position is they should be able to marry the person they love.

You've already pointed out examples above where people shouldn't be able to marry the person they love.

Based on informed consent.

Let's look at this'n in context...

The complaint is that some Christians want to tell EVERYONE how to live out THEIR lives BY FORCE OF LAW, whether they're Christians or not. You think that's what "religious freedom" means. That's rather like saying "Freedom of Speech" means you should be free only to say things that I agree with. It's ridiculous on its face.

My excersing religious freedom doesn't negate anyone else's.

Unless that person's a/religious position is they should be able to marry the person they love.

Voting to block another's a/religious freedom is impacting their a/religious freedom. It can be no other way.

Notice here the problem originates with Christians using their vote to enforce their perspective. A reasonable thing on it's face, but the problem lies in how can we know the Christian God is the one we should be seeking to please?

East of Eden is ostensibly saying if we don't allow the Christian to prevent others their freedom, then we have somehow blocked East of Eden's freedom.

I would then ammend my statement or claim to such as "We should be able to restrict the rights of others to restrict the rights of others". How many itterations of that statement before we realize folks should be as free as our multi-cultural, multi-religious society can allow?

Notice too East of Eden, as is his wont, has not included the more important part of my statement, where the voting to block another's a/religious freedom is a direct act of "negating" another's a/religious freedom. Of course to some extent we can and do block religious freedoms, notice there's not a whole lot of human sacrifice anymore, or putting folks in the stocks 'cause they skip a day of church.

The point here is that we should seek to include as many as possible in the blessings of this life. As a government entity offers privileges to married folks, so too should that government include other folks regarding who that government will offer privileges to.

And I will say again, all laws are an imposition of someone's morality on others who disagree.

And as I've said, such laws should seek the least imposition possible.

The very issue here is the violation of the Constitution, where the government offers freedoms and privileges to one group, and disallows them to another on the basis of them having sex with another consenting adult.

Such alleged Constitutional violation has yet to be determined, and anyway I thought you believed that to be just an ancient document that shouldn't constrict us?

I've said we should look to the Constitution for leadership, and should never hold ourselves bound to it. I don't think I've ever used the term "constrict", and consider it's use here a rhetorical tool to imply some harm to others, as well as a form of psychological projection, where the individual seeks to "constrict" the rights of homosexuals to marry the person they love.

We've made societal determination that girls of such a young age can't give informed consent.

And in CA and many other states we have made a societal determination that marriage is between a man and a woman.

And folks seek to overturn this vote.

Before it's said, I do not now, nor have I ever advocated allowing young children to marry.

Credibility is stretched when one rightfully declares they should vote their conscience, and that conscience is religious, but they don't use religion to inform their vote.

So what if it is? That is truly an extremist position. I don't believe in the separation of church and mind.

Then you agree yours is a position based on religion?

Then we get back to showing one's religious position should be considered above another's a/religious position.

Regardless of whether religiously based or not, the law is unfair, and unconstitutionally so on the grounds it preserves for some what it denies others.

Unconstitutional in your opinion.

I take that to mean you can't dispute it.

What does promiscuity have to do with folks seeking to marry one another anyway? If the parties involved agree to an open marriage I see no insurmountable problems.

From a practical standpoint it doesn't produce stable marriages, which kids need.

If all concerned enter into the deal with the promiscuity part of it, you have no claim.

I notice many heterosexual couples are "plagued" by promiscuity, are we to prevent those marriages?

Those who prevent their attempting to enjoy the "married to the one they love lifestyle".

Again, you've shown two examples above where you prevent people from enjoying being "married to the one they love ".

And AGAIN YOU STRIP THE CONTEXT.

Why?

Let's take a gander...

Does that mean "force everyone to live like you think Christians should"?

Who is forcing gays to stop their chosen lifestyle?

Those who prevent their attempting to enjoy the "married to the one they love lifestyle".

The government bestows benefits and privileges on married couples, and preventing these to people based on who they prefer to have sex with is attempting to "stop their chosen lifestyle", when their "chosen lifestyle" is to live as a married couple.

This is not about children, this is about grown, consenting adults who seek to enjoy the same rights and benefits afforded to other members of society.

[East of Eden]

Fair 'nuff, except for that whole restricting the rights and freedoms of others because one objects on moral grounds.

Which non-theists do also, unless you're saying non-theists have no moral basis.

It's not a problem to want to change, it is a problem to present a biased source and data.

Who doesn't have a bias? The APA does.

See the post you seem to have skipped over or read without response.

I skipped over it because it was an irrelevant comment. Because some violate the ideal doesn't mean you throw out the ideal.

I am not obligated to, let alone have time for, answer every comment.

I'll take that as "all who agree with me are experts in the field".

Take it as an example of someone with a non-religious objection to gay marriage, something CNorman claims doesn't exist.

A scientific argument. Whether it aligns with other folks' a/religious beliefs is on them.

As was the piece I put up on Mr. Blankenship's objection to gay marriage.

Based on a reasonable and logical conclusion drawn from psychology. A child of thirteen is not generally sufficiently mature to understand what all is involved with marriage.

Your qualifier is noted. My qualifier and that of 52% of the people of CA is that two people of the same gender are not marriage candidates.

Plenty fair, and I agree to much of that there "opinion spoutin'" myself.

Once again we agree. It's irritating to see the egotistical opinions here presented as unquestionable facts.

That said, surely you'd agree that just saying something is opinion doesn't really show that opinion to be incorrect or correct.

Right, it shows it to be opinion, not fact. A prime example of that is declaring something unconsitutional that the SCOTUS hasn't decided on yet. If anyone knows for sure how the SCOTUS will rule on anything, I suggest they also go buy a winning lottery ticket.

Based on informed consent.

Your qualifier, which I agree with. Off topic, but makes me wonder why 15 year olds can get an abortion without parental consent.........

Notice here the problem originates with Christians using their vote to enforce their perspective. A reasonable thing on it's face, but the problem lies in how can we know the Christian God is the one we should be seeking to please?

That's up to each individual.

East of Eden is ostensibly saying if we don't allow the Christian to prevent others their freedom, then we have somehow blocked East of Eden's freedom.

How am I preventing other's freedeom anymore than you are by opposing marriage for others in at least two other examples?

I would then ammend my statement or claim to such as "We should be able to restrict the rights of others to restrict the rights of others". How many itterations of that statement before we realize folks should be as free as our multi-cultural, multi-religious society can allow?

Why try to stop religious people from voting their conscience?

Notice too East of Eden, as is his wont, has not included the more important part of my statement, where the voting to block another's a/religious freedom is a direct act of "negating" another's a/religious freedom. Of course to some extent we can and do block religious freedoms, notice there's not a whole lot of human sacrifice anymore, or putting folks in the stocks 'cause they skip a day of church.

The point here is that we should seek to include as many as possible in the blessings of this life. As a government entity offers privileges to married folks, so too should that government include other folks regarding who that government will offer privileges to.

The question addressed in the CA referendum is who should be allowed to marry. Even you don't think everyone should be able to.

I've said we should look to the Constitution for leadership, and should never hold ourselves bound to it.

Then why bring up what you think the Constitution intended?

Before it's said, I do not now, nor have I ever advocated allowing young children to marry.

Very sensible of you. Just be glad you're not being called a 'bigot' and 'hater' for your position.

Then you agree yours is a position based on religion?

To some degree. Eveyone's opinions are influenced by their world-view, including you.

Then we get back to showing one's religious position should be considered above another's a/religious position.

Only if they get the most votes.

I take that to mean you can't dispute it.

It means that the consitutionality of it hasn't been decided, making your view simply an opinion, as is mine.

And AGAIN YOU STRIP THE CONTEXT.

Why?

Let's take a gander...

Does that mean "force everyone to live like you think Christians should"?

Who is forcing gays to stop their chosen lifestyle?

Those who prevent their attempting to enjoy the "married to the one they love lifestyle".

The government bestows benefits and privileges on married couples, and preventing these to people based on who they prefer to have sex with is attempting to "stop their chosen lifestyle", when their "chosen lifestyle" is to live as a married couple.

This is not about children, this is about grown, consenting adults who seek to enjoy the same rights and benefits afforded to other members of society.

Devout Mormons and Muslims would disagree with you, especially since the 'prophet' married a 6 year old. Regardless, you are making a moral judgement that such marriages are wrong. Why is that OK but not OK for 52% of Californians to make their own moral judgement on Prop. 8?

[JoeyKnothead]

Time presses, but I should address this'n...

Just be glad you're not being called a 'bigot' and 'hater' for your position.

I for sure used the term 'bigot' in this thread (and likely others), and have been known to use 'hater', and so agree I'm guilty here.

My intent was to use the word bigot as a 'clinical' term, but even that is easily abused or at best misunderstood. I didn't offer the apology / retraction when I saw otseng present it so as not to continue to drag the thread off topic.

With that, and with my previous words directed at East of Eden, I offer an apology, and a promise to try to remove those words from my vocabulary.

East of Eden, best I can tell, is a decent person who I happen to disagree with.

I'll try to get back to the hollerin' and carryin' on asap.

[East of Eden]

Time presses, but I should address this'n...

Just be glad you're not being called a 'bigot' and 'hater' for your position.

I for sure used the term 'bigot' in this thread (and likely others), and have been known to use 'hater', and so agree I'm guilty here.

My intent was to use the word bigot as a 'clinical' term, but even that is easily abused or at best misunderstood. I didn't offer the apology / retraction when I saw otseng present it so as not to continue to drag the thread off topic.

With that, and with my previous words directed at East of Eden, I offer an apology, and a promise to try to remove those words from my vocabulary.

East of Eden, best I can tell, is a decent person who I happen to disagree with.

I'll try to get back to the hollerin' and carryin' on asap.

Very decent of you, and I'll try to not use the word 'lie' in the future. Both words in question are somewhat inflammatory personal digs that aren't helpful in a debate.

[cnorman18]

Time presses, but I should address this'n...

Just be glad you're not being called a 'bigot' and 'hater' for your position.

I for sure used the term 'bigot' in this thread (and likely others), and have been known to use 'hater', and so agree I'm guilty here.

My intent was to use the word bigot as a 'clinical' term, but even that is easily abused or at best misunderstood. I didn't offer the apology / retraction when I saw otseng present it so as not to continue to drag the thread off topic.

With that, and with my previous words directed at East of Eden, I offer an apology, and a promise to try to remove those words from my vocabulary.

East of Eden, best I can tell, is a decent person who I happen to disagree with.

I'll try to get back to the hollerin' and carryin' on asap.

Very decent of you, and I'll try to not use the word 'lie' in the future. Both words in question are somewhat inflammatory personal digs that aren't helpful in a debate.

Let me sign in here too. I apologize also; I do tend to get a trifle uncivil from time to time, and I've got less right to do that than anyone here - we moderators are supposed to set good examples. "Bigot" was never appropriate, and I'm sorry.

Strong disagreement can lead to strong words. It's better if we all remember - hey, it's just an Internet debate. We aren't deciding national policy here; we're just arguing among ourselves. Keeping this community civil and friendly is more important than any single issue.

Be well, to both of you.

[East of Eden]

Time presses, but I should address this'n...

Just be glad you're not being called a 'bigot' and 'hater' for your position.

I for sure used the term 'bigot' in this thread (and likely others), and have been known to use 'hater', and so agree I'm guilty here.

My intent was to use the word bigot as a 'clinical' term, but even that is easily abused or at best misunderstood. I didn't offer the apology / retraction when I saw otseng present it so as not to continue to drag the thread off topic.

With that, and with my previous words directed at East of Eden, I offer an apology, and a promise to try to remove those words from my vocabulary.

East of Eden, best I can tell, is a decent person who I happen to disagree with.

I'll try to get back to the hollerin' and carryin' on asap.

Very decent of you, and I'll try to not use the word 'lie' in the future. Both words in question are somewhat inflammatory personal digs that aren't helpful in a debate.

Let me sign in here too. I apologize also; I do tend to get a trifle uncivil from time to time, and I've got less right to do that than anyone here - we moderators are supposed to set good examples. "Bigot" was never appropriate, and I'm sorry.

Strong disagreement can lead to strong words. It's better if we all remember - hey, it's just an Internet debate. We aren't deciding national policy here; we're just arguing among ourselves. Keeping this community civil and friendly is more important than any single issue.

Be well, to both of you.

Well said, CNorman. That's the kind of attitude that makes this a great forum.