[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by Monkei

Using that knowledge I am sure that a vast majority of southern citizens were ok with slavery. They might not have had a prop to vet on but their elected officials chose to leave the union. Sometimes I wonder if this country would have been better to just let the south succeed.

Your scenario doesn't really matter in terms of the Judiciary Branch over-reaching to choke the voice of the people who voted in this century/millenium.

And Californians who voted on the definition of one man/one woman in marriage did not rebel nor secede from the Union, which could be called "treason". They voted, and they voted to keep and constitutionalize a definition that has endured thousands of years, both BC and AD.

[Golfingnut]

Derek Penwell: The Problem With Assuming Liberal Christians Hate the Bible

[Bill Tasker]

The following is a letter I wrote to SCOTUS in support of defeating DOMA. I'm sharing it with you because I believe the content touches on a lot of of the areas we have discussed.
JUSTICES OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

In ordaining the Constitution of the United States, WE THE PEOPLE agree to ensure “the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity.”

Before the eyes of the world, at approximately 12:30 A.M., New Year’s Day 2013, my partner of 35 years and I became a legally married couple in the state of Maryland. This would not be news worthy but for the fact we are a same sex couple. As a relatively closeted gay man, for me this was a huge soul searching undertaking. Oh, I am not naive enough to think that many already came to their own conclusion about my sexuality. When my partner informed me we were given the opportunity to marry on New Year’s Day and that the ceremony would be performed by the Mayor and seen around the world, I had to really come to terms with the gravity of this moment. Since Maryland passed the Marriage Equality Act on ballot in November 2012, I knew that we would marry to protect each other, but I envisioned a simple “I Do” at the clerk’s office. But after a while I began to see how significant and monumental this moment was not just for Jim and me but for all members of the LGBT Community everywhere. To stand up to injustice and embrace what should have been our civil right. I was reminded of the Book of Esther and how risking her own life, had to “come out” to her King that she was a Jew in order to save her people from mass murder. “Perhaps it was for this time I was born.” But the story can’t end there. Until couples are free to marry in all states and are recognized to have the same freedoms, benefits and protections under Federal government, we shall remain a subordinate class. A position we have refused to accept.

The contemplation of the possibility of the Justices upholding the Defense of Marriage Act weighs heavy upon my heart. I have no hatred or malice toward my heterosexual brothers and sisters and yet some within this group would have you believe that the union of same sex couples in some way threatens the establishment of marriage between a man and a woman. The divorce rate among heterosexual couples is evidence that men and women everywhere have done their level best to destroy the sanctity of marriage without the aid of same sex couples. And still I do not deny their right to marry. The Defense of Marriage Act in its very title is offensive and prejudice toward a minority class of citizens equally protected by the Constitution. Gay men and women have laid down their lives to protect this Constitution. They still today proudly stand beside their heterosexual peers, only to be told we are not worthy of the same rights and freedoms established by the Constitution.

Who among you will be our Thaddeus Stevens? Who will fight for justice for a minority class? Who will stand up for equality? Who will recognize and expose The Defense of Marriage Act as an amendment that would prejudice a minority class?

I appeal to you, to do the right thing, to uphold equality and fairness, to ensure that the Blessings of Liberty are equal to all.

Sincerely,

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Our country was founded as a nation of laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court operates on the basis of constitutional structure. Those of us who focus so much on "strict interpretation" of the U.S. Constitution must be very, very conscious of this. It is my understanding that court decisions are made based on majority, as is appropriate for the democracy that we are. Hence, even though one Justice undertakes the responsibility of writing the majority opinion, he or she is not responsible for the decision itself; he or she was just one vote in making that decision.

Speaking of democracy, when Alexis de Tocqueville visited and toured our fledgling nation in the 1830s, one of the things he noted was what he referred to as "the tyranny of the majority," meaning that the minority (i.e. in some instances, "minorities" [plural]) were forced by democracy, so to speak, to live with the effects of votes by the majority. This can be particularly appreciated when one is on the losing end of an election, as an example. Anytime is a good time to pick up de Tocqueville's seminal work (Democracy in America) and re-read it, as it is always timely.

I'm in complete agreement with the statement about "who spoke up because most won't." And that "won't" so often means "not be bothered." Sad when you think about it. This is why when an elected official receives a letter (yes, some of us still write letters!) expressing a view on a subject, that official considers that the letter represents hundreds of constituents, perhaps thousands, perhaps even tens or hundreds of thousands.

Quixote: Alexis de Tocqueville also said in that same publication that" he marveled at the way Americans preferred voluntary association to government regulation." "The inhabitants of the United States has only a defiant and restive regard for social authority and he appeals to it only when he can do without it. In other words self-rule

ilovetv: post #359 speaks to that issue (CA Prop 8) and the fact that "we the people" spoke and the Court said we don't care what you think"" . Also in that same post janmn stated 61% of Florida's population said no again the Court said "forget you". Keep in mind that Florida homosexual community is one of the largest in the nation

Again the Supreme Court these days because it is so politically charged is legislating via judicial rulings. Its why there is such a bitter debate each time an opening occurs. Secondly the nature of this issue is such that it should have never been taken out of the hands of citizens

As an aside. I am happy to see that the thread continues because there were a few posters who declared it nil and void and hence closed. IMHO as with all threads here this thread will simply retire on its own ....as it should be for those who desire to continue. ilovetv injection of one of the great thinkers is an example of the benefits of longevity

[Bill Tasker]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Quixote: Alexis de Tocqueville also said in that same publication that" he marveled at the way Americans preferred voluntary association to government regulation." "The inhabitants of the United States has only a defiant and restive regard for social authority and he appeals to it only when he can do without it. In other words self-rule

ilovetv: post #359 speaks to that issue (CA Prop 8) and the fact that "we the people" spoke and the Court said we don't care what you think"" . Also in that same post janmn stated 61% of Florida's population said no again the Court said "forget you". Keep in mind that Florida homosexual community is one of the largest in the nation

IMO: The fact that 61% of a population supported an amendment that was pedjudical to a minority portion of the total state population, does not mean the amendment is correct or fair. The unfairness of a popular vote is why we have appeals.

Again the Supreme Court these days because it is so politically charged is legislating via judicial rulings. Its why there is such a bitter debate each time an opening occurs. Secondly the nature of this issue is such that it should have never been taken out of the hands of citizens

As an aside. I am happy to see that the thread continues because there were a few posters who declared it nil and void and hence closed. IMHO as with all threads here this thread will simply retire on its own ....as it should be for those who desire to continue. ilovetv injection of one of the great thinkers is an example of the benefits of longevity

When a majority is able to tred upon a minority in order to benefit themselves over others, that is injustice. IMHO, that is when a government for "all" people must take the iniative to level the playing field to ensure the rights of "all" people are being considered and protected and not just the majority because that's the way they want it.

And I love how all minorities are "special interest groups" becuase they don't fit into what some perceive to be the righteous majority.

[ilovetv]

Bill, excellent letter. However, I disagree with a couple of statements. The first is:

"I was reminded of the Book of Esther and how risking her own life, had to “come out” to her King that she was a Jew in order to save her people from mass murder."

With all due respect, today's gay people do not "risk their own life to save his people from mass murder" nor anything even close to that level of gravity, by coming out of the closet and stating his desire to be married to his gay partner.

It is interesting, however, that you mention Esther coming out to "her king". As a matter of fact, many of us concerned about the balance of powers between judiciary, legislative and executive branches see the Supreme Court acting this week....as a king or monarchy that has its final say by over-ruling the voice of the people at the referendum ballot box.

Also, with all due respect, this is a straw man argument:

"yet some within this group would have you believe that the union of same sex couples in some way [U]threatens the establishment of marriage between a man and a woman. The divorce rate among heterosexual couples is evidence that men and women everywhere have done their level best to destroy the sanctity of marriage."

Never in 20 years of watching gay/lesbian couples campaigning for marriage rights have I seen an opponent of gay marriage claim that individuals' marriages were threatened or endangered by this proposed change to marriage law. It is the societal and civil institution of marriage--relating to family and healthy child-rearing as affected by the laws--that is threatened!!

Nobody will ever convince me and others that a child born to two men or to two women, conceived by artificial insemination, prefers that over never having BOTH a biological, live-in mother and father in his/her life.

If there is one common trait about kids in K-12 school, it is clearly that they want to be like everybody else-- who has both a mom and a dad whom they've at least MET and know something about.

To not know from whom you came goes right to the core of why adoptive children often spend their whole lives searching for that biologicial mother "who did not want me" and "WHY did she not keep me?". AND, "why did my biological father not CLAIM me nor seek to raise me...like I'm so worthless!?!"

Children deserve to have both a male and a female parent for role modeling, teaching, and the sense of security each is uniquely equipped to give their own child.

Thank you for respecting a difference of opinions, which others have called "hatred", "bigotry" and all kinds of other bigoted and hateful stereotypes.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by janmcn

An article in today's Tampa Bay Times explains some of the ramifications of the Supreme Court's decision to Florida residents, including filing income taxes, social security, medicaid and medicare, immigration, veterans, etc.

Some of these processes can be changed by the president's signature, while some will require an act of Congress, and some will require court action.

One of the experts interviewed for this article, Miami-based lawyer Elizabeth Schwartz, a nationally recognized advocate for gay and lesbian rights said "I think there's going to be gay flight. I think people are going to pick up and go."



Mixed benefits of DOMA decision for gay couples in Florida | Tampa Bay Times

Originally Posted by rubicon

Quixote: Alexis de Tocqueville also said in that same publication that" he marveled at the way Americans preferred voluntary association to government regulation." "The inhabitants of the United States has only a defiant and restive regard for social authority and he appeals to it only when he can do without it. In other words self-rule

ilovetv: post #359 speaks to that issue (CA Prop 8) and the fact that "we the people" spoke and the Court said we don't care what you think"" . Also in that same post janmn stated 61% of Florida's population said no again the Court said "forget you". Keep in mind that Florida homosexual community is one of the largest in the nation

Again the Supreme Court these days because it is so politically charged is legislating via judicial rulings. Its why there is such a bitter debate each time an opening occurs. Secondly the nature of this issue is such that it should have never been taken out of the hands of citizens

As an aside. I am happy to see that the thread continues because there were a few posters who declared it nil and void and hence closed. IMHO as with all threads here this thread will simply retire on its own ....as it should be for those who desire to continue. ilovetv injection of one of the great thinkers is an example of the benefits of longevity

You seem to have the misconception that the Supreme Court's repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act somehow changes the laws in Florida. Nothing could be further from the truth. This court decision only applies to the 13 states and DC where same-sex marriage is the law.

If you click on the link I provided in my previous post, you will see that very few of the federal benefits apply to Florida residents, at this time, with the exception of active duty military and federal workers.

You are correct that Florida has a very large gay and lesbian community, second highest in the country. One expert quoted in this linked article says "I think there's going to be gay flight. I think people are going to pick up and go." Why would they stay here where the welcome mat is not out?

[Golfingnut]

My inner thoughts:::

I am a Gay rights FANATIC.
He is a religious. FANATIC.
She is an animal rights FANATIC.
They are Veagan diet FANATICS.

Should we be fanatical to the death of us all and our country or should we allow all fanatics to have and practice their own beliefs. Perhaps that would be considered too much freedom.

I do feel being fanatical about any issue will be detrimental to others freedoms and rights.
We must do something before our streets look like many in the Middle East

[jblum315]

If it weren't for fanatics, nothing would ever change

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by jblum315

If it weren't for fanatics, nothing would ever change

I think that used to be the case, but now everyone digs their heals in and we are left with little room for compromise. We need to stop looking at compromise as defeat. Does that make me a compromise fanatic?

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

I think that used to be the case, but now everyone digs their heals in and we are left with little room for compromise. We need to stop looking at compromise as defeat. Does that make me a compromise fanatic?

Nothing wrong with compromise. That is the correct way we should be governing too.

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by Monkei

Nothing wrong with compromise. That is the correct way we should be governing too.

That's right. Legalized federal "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" with the key rights gay/lesbian couples want such as hospital visitation, inheritance tax, etc. in them would be a fitting compromise instead of entering couplings into "marriage" that have NOT fit the criteria for marriage for thousands of years!

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

Children deserve to have both a male and a female parent for role modeling, teaching, and the sense of security each is uniquely equipped to give their own child.

In a perfect world, that would be true. However one-third of American children today, 16 million, are being raised in single-parent homes. And a lot of those families are living in poverty.

I know many same-sex partners who are quietly and successfully raising children in a very stable and secure environment.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

In a perfect world, that would be true. However one-third of American children today, 16 million, are being raised in single-parent homes. And a lot of those families are living in poverty.

I know many same-sex partners who are quietly and successfully raising children in a very stable and secure environment.

That's true. Also I find fault with so many things folks find OK because it has been that way for XXX years or it is tradition. If it is wrong, no amount of years or tradition can change wrong to right.

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

In a perfect world, that would be true. However one-third of American children today, 16 million, are being raised in single-parent homes. And a lot of those families are living in poverty.

I know many same-sex partners who are quietly and successfully raising children in a very stable and secure environment.

And my bet is that 15.8 million of those children at least have two parents that are a male and a female who, flawed as they might be, are still prone to teach their kids--by either good or bad example--that it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child, NOT a woman and a physician administering the contents of a test tube.

One of the long-term effects we're concerned about is the teaching to children that a father is not needed, by way of teaching that artificial insemination is just as good as a known, loving, married/divorced, rich/poor, live-in/out father.

This teaching and role modeling of no need for a known, identifiable, present father is especially worrisome in light of the above-quoted poverty known to be closely linked with fatherlessness!