Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Gay Marriage (Polling) Conundrum

On the heels of a decision by California's Supreme Court to uphold a ban on gay marriage in the Golden State comes polling data from USA Today/Gallup that contradicts the conventional wisdom that a majority of the American public is moving closer to acceptance of same-sex unions.

Asked whether "marriages between same-sex couples" should or shouldn't be "recognized by the law as valid", 40 percent of the sample said those unions should be valid while 57 percent said they should not.

Those number are essentially unchanged from a May 2008 Gallup survey but less optimistic for proponents of gay marriage than a May 2007 poll in which 46 percent said same sex marriages should be valid while 53 percent said they should not.

The USA Today/Gallup survey also asked whether "allowing two people of the same sex to marry" would change change society for the better, the worse or have no effect. Thirteen percent said it would make things better, 48 percent said it would make things worse and 36 percent said allowing gay people to marry would have no effect on society.

This poll data contrasts directly with data from several other national survey outlets that have shown a growing acceptance toward the idea of gay marriage.

In a late April Washington Post/ABC News poll, 49 percent said it should be legal for gay couples to marry -- a thirteen point increase in that number since a June 2006 Post/ABC survey.

What gives? Opinions vary, although it's worth noting that the wording of the question could well have some effect on the response. While USA Today/Gallup asks whether gay couples should have the "same rights as traditional marriages", the Post/ABC survey simply asks whether it should be "legal or illegal for gay and lesbian/homosexual couples to get married".

The first phrasing draws a direct contrast between gay marriage and "traditional" marriage while the second makes no mention of heterosexual marriage.

While the data out of Gallup does give us some pause when it comes to analyzing the political potency of the gay marriage debate, the majority of evidence suggests that gay marriage is still an issue that animates the bases of both parties -- particularly social conservatives -- but is not one that the middle of the country (ideologically) finds deeply objectionable.

That said, between the California ruling yesterday and the ongoing debate in New Hampshire about the legalization of gay marriage, this is an issue that will draw significant media attention over the coming months and will certainly be a topic of conversation in the 2012 Republican presidential primary fight.

To be continued....

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 27, 2009; 3:05 PM ET
Categories:  Democratic Party , Republican Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dodd on the Rebound
Next: Sestak (Likely) In Against Specter

Comments

Those are federal "rights". Here in California, domestic partners already have every State right that married couples have. The fight over the label "marriage" is simply one more step toward overturning DOMA.

Posted by: JakeD | May 29, 2009 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Rawreid asks some interesting questions. But they address only part of the issue. There are several government granted rights that go with marriage that individuals cannot contract. For example, there are usually tax advantages and citizenship issues. In my own case, for example, I would have no problem moving to the US, though I am not a citizen, because I am married to a US citizen. She could not have contracted that right to me.

Posted by: qlangley | May 29, 2009 4:25 AM | Report abuse

Civil union: Any two people over the age of (18?) can be issued a license to be joined together in a civil union which means they have a right to each other's property; to inherit each other's property, to provide each other with health insurance and other employee benefits, to be the beneficiary of each other's annuity or social security (to the extent that anyone is allowed); to be treated as a 'family member' by employers, hospitals, etc. That's all. Sex is not mentioned, nor is religion.

Marriage: a religion-sanctioned joining of two people (sex, age, relationship to be determined by sect) to share a lifetime as a family; to have children; to comfort, love and financially support each other and offspring. Sex is implicit in child bearing.

The problem: 1) Government/employers/hospitals etc. will not recognize a couple who has only had a jump over the broomstick or even a church wedding that is done without a state-issued marriage license and 2) clergymen will not marry anyone without a state-issued marriage license.

How to solve this dilemma? Grant any two people over a certain age a license to a civil union and let those who wish to be married in a religious ceremony do so if they can find a clergyman to perform it? That's not really so different from what we have now.

Can't we agree to have both civil unions and marriages and everyone live happily ever after?

Posted by: rawreid | May 28, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I do not make "unfounded assertions" (if anyone who will return me the same common courtesy has a civil question about any post of mine, I will gladly answer). Questions, however, are not "assertions". And, I can prove lots of negatives, e.g. I am not a female, or I am not a homosexual.

If there is any link I can provide to those who want to discuss the issues in a civil manner, I will always do so. In another thread, for instance, I linked to the scientific studies examining Exodus International's claims at "changing" deviant sexual behavior -- this is not my first rodeo -- but (for anyone else) here they are again:

http://www.ivpress.com/media/exgays-whitepaper.pdf

http://doi.apa.org/getuid.cfm?uid=2000-13311-005

Also, the "slippery slope" argument is not a logical fallacy if it is ALREADY HAPPENING. In this thread, I linked to http://www.moraloutrage.net/ and pointed out that groups like NAMBLA are, indeed, arguing to change the age of consent laws -- it is not a "slippery slope" to prove that is going to happen if same-sex "marriage" is upheld -- I have plenty of libs on the record that they are fine with incest ("Imjustlikemusiq" being the most recent), prostitution, polygamy, etc. It is correct to say that no one has admitted (in public, yet) that they are O.K. with pedophilia, but that's hardly a stretch of the imagination if everything else goes down the tubes.

Finally, I have already read Ted Olson's briefs on the federal challenge, and I stand by my assertion that Barbara -- God rest her soul -- would never have let him do this. She was a proud, unfailing CONSERVATIVE. If you think that assertion is "unfounded" please read her last book (published posthumously in October 2001). I don't have a link to that, only my hard copy. I can only hope that the ROBERTS Court holds the line and sets back the same-sex "marriage" movement decades, if not permanently.

Posted by: JakeD | May 28, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Note the emptiness of opposition arguments: unfounded assertions and slippery slopes. Slippery slope arguments are intrinsically fallacious, just like the demand to prove a negative. Learn some logic you f*cking idiots.

And those who call homosexuality a deviancy are clinically wrong; those who declare it to be part of a continuum that includes pedophilia deserve to be tracked down and savaged. A slanderous lie like that needs to be physically answered.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 28, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

foes of same-sex marriage are in trouble:

'Theodore B. Olson, the U.S. solicitor general under Bush and his lawyer in Bush v. Gore, and David Boies, who represented former vice president Al Gore in that case, have joined forces to challenge Proposition 8 in federal court after this week’s loss in the California state court system.

A successful challenge would circumvent the need for a state by state fight on the issue. The Supreme Court has long dodged the question, even in its historic Lawrence v. Texas decision.

They are challenging the prohibition of same-sex marriage as a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Olson stated” “For a long time I’ve personally felt that we are doing a grave injustice for people throughout this country by denying equality to gay and lesbian individuals. The individuals that we represent and will be representing in this case feel they’re being denied their rights. And they’re entitled to have a court vindicate those rights.”

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Again, POTUS has no worries about he gay voters.. they have nowhere to turn.. more and more groups will figure this out over the next four years.. you are stuck with him and he will tell you anything and give you what is convenient and suit his own whims.. buck it up rainbow warriors.. stand by your man.

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 28, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Imjustlikemusiq:

If incest is fine with you, why didn't you address my other "clever" retort re: polygamy? How about prostitution? ALL acts between adults with consent should be fine, according to your logic. Then it will be ALL acts between adults and TEENS with consent, etc. down the line.

Posted by: JakeD | May 28, 2009 4:50 AM | Report abuse

There are other significant differences in the wording of the questions:

Asking whether same sex marriages should be legal or illegal is different to asking whether they should be recognised. Most people associate the legal/illegal dichotomy with the criminal law, as when it is asked about drugs, though this is not the question under discussion regarding gay marriage in the US. It is, of course, the issue that was settled with regard to mixed race marriages in Loving vs Virginia. It may be that some people who do not want the government to recognise same sex marriages nonetheless hesitate to say they should be illegal because it conjures images of criminal sanction.

Also, people might answer yes to supporting "marriage rights" while supporting civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage but stop short of using the word 'marriage' for such unions. This is a significant strand of opinion in the US - including, of course, Barack Obama - who might answer yes or no to a question about 'marriage rights'.

Posted by: qlangley | May 28, 2009 4:07 AM | Report abuse

There are other significant differences in the wording of the questions:

Asking whether same sex marriages should be legal or illegal is different to asking whether they should be recognised. Most people associate the legal/illegal dichotomy with the criminal law, as when it is asked about drugs, though this is not the question under discussion regarding gay marriage in the US. It is, of course, the issue that was settled with regard to mixed race marriages in Loving vs Virginia. It may be that some people who do not want the government to recognise same sex marriages nonetheless hesitate to say they should be illegal because it conjures images of criminal sanction.

Also, people might answer yes to supporting "marriage rights" while supporting civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage but stop short of using the word 'marriage' for such unions. This is a significant strand of opinion in the US - including, of course, Barack Obama - who might answer yes or no to a question about 'marriage rights'.

Posted by: qlangley | May 28, 2009 4:07 AM | Report abuse

Jake you are a fool. First, in what you consider to be quite the clever retort, you beg the following questions:

Is it alright, then for a man and three sheeps to do what they want in the privacy of their own home?
No, that is animal cruelty not to mention the fact that there is no possible consent. Gay marriage and gay sex relates to two adults consenting. This example is cliche and foolish. Not surprising as most of what you've cited and argued has been cliche and foolish.

Next you ask....

Is it alright, then, for two adult brother and sister to have sex in the privacy of their own home?
The answer to that, my friend, is yes. Unfortunately, I doubt you will ever get outside your box and realize that there is nothing wrong with incest aside from the fact that religion dictates it being wrong. The genetic defects of first cousins reproducing has been proven to result in no less harm than a 40 year old woman giving birth. Siblings offer a very slight increase. So, no there is nothing wrong with that... I'm sure this may be a bit progressive for most people here, but if you do a little research and break from the social hegemony, perhaps, you'll see things my way...

Posted by: Imjustlikemusiq | May 28, 2009 1:47 AM | Report abuse

LOL!!! I'm too old to worry about idle threats.

Posted by: JakeD | May 28, 2009 12:56 AM | Report abuse

But you say it anyway because it sounds cute.

(Cute in the way that makes me want to punch you in the teeth.)

==

I'm sure if Jakes identity was revealed here he would vanish in a heartbeat and probably go into hiding, because it's a certainty that someone would track him down and put him in the hospital.

His bravado is founded on his anonymity, and for his direct comparisons between homosexuals and pedophiles he deserves to be blinded and castrated.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 27, 2009 11:16 PM | Report abuse

i read a good article on this here:
http://www.examiner.com/x-6571-Atlanta-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m5d27-Atlantans-protest-Proposition-8-whats-the-right-approach

it talks about how Martin Luther King approached equality issues - with goodness and kindness not insults and vandalism the way the gay community is approaching this issue. just scroll down at the end of the article she talks about it.

Posted by: monica6 | May 27, 2009 9:50 PM | Report abuse

robvat:

If they are so hateful towards God and themselves, I guess it's expected they would be hateful to us too.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 8:31 PM | Report abuse

pdxgeek:

Of course, even if you could otherwise provide for the continuation of the human species, it would not be "fair" to outlaw heterosexual marriage -- see Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); and M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996) just to cite a few U.S. Supreme Court cases upholding the “fundamental importance” of heterosexual marriage -- too bad the ONLY U.S. Supreme Court case on same-sex marriage goes against your side.

But, don't worry -- I don't want to make homosexuality illegal, so you can stop with THAT strawman argument -- I already PROVED that my hypothetical about "consenting teens" is already being urged and, therefore, is not a strawman argument. You were saying something about "punch[ing]" me in the teeth?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, what's up with these guys and their insults? Happens everytime doesn't it. We calmly try to have a rational discussion of opposing viewpoints, but they can't accept that. If we disagree with them, watch out. Early on I tryed to show greenmansf respect, but what happened became predicatable.

Posted by: robvat | May 27, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

In closing, based on greenmansf's logic, we should ignore the nukes in North Korea and let them do what they want since we shouldn't live in fear of the unknown.

Posted by: robvat | May 27, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

1) Let's use this test.... flip it, lets make heterosexual marriage illegal and homosexual marriage legal. (As for kids, we'll just make kids in labs where we can ensure there is no transmission of STDs from parent to child and eliminate other genetic birth defects.) Is that fair? No? Alright then.

2) If you want to make homosexuality illegal, grow some balls and just say it. Don't pussyfoot around with this deviant behavior BS. The truth is the right wing knows its already lost that argument.

3) The activity in question is marriage. Absent of discrimination against a minority... there is no difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage, so no reason for the state to be involved. As for your (or more) reference See my explanation about polygamy below.

4) Glad to hear you're not a homophobe AND a racist.

Posted by: pdxgeek | May 27, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Did you see that "pdxgeek" wants to punch me in the teeth? Simply for listing 4 "counterarguments".

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

When someone responds the way greensmanf is doing, you know they are loosing the argument and can't take it like an adult.

All they can do is attack. That's what the real shame is. It's right out of the handbook "Rules for Radicals". Manufacture/create an enemy and then attack, attack, attack them.

Posted by: robvat | May 27, 2009 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

P.S. groups like NAMBLA are, indeed, arguing to change the age of consent laws. There won't be any stopping them if same-sex "marriage" is upheld -- Barbara Olson would never have let Ted do this -- God rest her soul.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Logic is not your strong suit robvat. You stated outright that you were only baiting me to get me to insult you

greenmansf, I did not state outright that I was baiting you so you could insult me. Read my comment again. Don't put words in my mouth.

I just knew you would start insulting me.

And again, you did before I stated I was PARTIALLY baiting you.


Here was my comment:

What's funny greenmansf, is I was partially baiting you. I knew if wouldn't be long before the insults came. I'm sitting here laughing my butt off. It happens everytime.

Because I disagree with you I'm a bigot? Is it possible that I may happen to be gay. You don't know that. There are gays who oppose gay marriage. Are they bigots too?

20 years ago, gay activists/groups protested for similar rights as heterosexuals (employment, housing, etc). Opponents claimed their real ultimate agenda was gay marriage and adaption. The activists claimed that was BULL and it was just frivolous arguments made by homophobes. They claimed their goal was not and never will be marriage. Guess what?

Posted by: robvat | May 27, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

I also said "fill in the blank" (and have provided plenty of other examples of consenting ADULTS). Again, feel free to concede defeat and move on to any of the other points whenever you want.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Pre-Pubescent JakeD?

Straw man much? Consenting Adults. Nobody is arguing anything else. Maybe its your own sick desires you are worrying about.

Posted by: pdxgeek | May 27, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

robvat:

At least "greenmansf" has not threatened bodily harm against you (yet ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Sorry robvat, I am insulted that you are only here to bait people into insulting you. You came here with that intention as you stated clearly, and you are now claiming some sort of moral victory because I did what you wanted me to do when you baited me? Again, wow. I am glad to have provided you with some obviously much needed social interaction, but I am saddened that this is what you do for fun. By the way, we are done now as I am not comfortable mocking an obviously sad and lonely person who feels that they win some sort of moral victory by getting people to insult.

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

pdxgeek:

Feel free to concede defeat on my point #1) and move to any of the following ...

2) I am not using a religious argument against same-sex "marriage" (see my "secular" argument below).

3) The STATE does have a legitimate legal interest in the prevention of lots of activity between two (or more) consenting adults.

4) Please see my support of interracial marriage below.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

"It is biological. To deny them their choice of ___fill in the blank___ partner in marriage is to deny them marriage entirely."

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

pdxgeek:

Bring. It. On.

There is a "significant portion of society" that is attracted to pre-pubescent boys and girls. We don't allow them to "marry" either.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

And by the way, baiting someone is not always or necessarily wrong. Attorneys do it all the time. So do counselors, shrinks, ministers, etc.

Posted by: robvat | May 27, 2009 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Logic is not your strong suit robvat. You stated outright that you were only baiting me to get me to insult you. And you want to continue that baiting? Even after you admit you have no argument, you want to attempt to make me believe you have one? And this somehow give you pleasure in your life? Wow.

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

By the way greenmansf, did you notice you insulted me before I said I was "partially baiting you". Again, here come the insults. I still haven't said one bad thing about you yet.

Posted by: robvat | May 27, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

The argument that homosexuals can marry whatever person of the opposite sex they want is juvenile. It is imposing your belief that they don't have to be homosexual upon the entire group. There is a significant portion of society that is attracted to the same sex. It is biological. To deny them their choice of a same sex partner in marriage is to deny them marriage entirely.

But you say it anyway because it sounds cute.

(Cute in the way that makes me want to punch you in the teeth.)

Posted by: pdxgeek | May 27, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Greenmansf, based on your arguments, any type of logical prediction is ridiculous. Of course no one can predict the future. But one can use the past/present(not to mention common sense) to help predict the future. This is done by everyone. For exampe education, history and knowledge. You remove that and you have anarchy.

Posted by: robvat | May 27, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Robvat,

The institution of marriage is a social construct predating our country that our government has formed laws around. In essence marriage is the union of two consenting adults for the purpose of a lifelong commitment to love and care for one another.

Since marriage is both a spiritual and civil union, it is important that we recognize everyone's spiritual belief systems, but have one set of laws that governs everyone.

I for one would like to remove marriage from government replacing it with civil unions for all. Thus both heterosexuals and homosexuals may elect to have either or both a marriage and a civil union (all current marriages in the eyes of the government would become civil unions). Religious institutions which do not support gay marriage would have the right to refuse to marry a gay couple.

In the absence the above, the only other reasonable choice that protects the rights of all Americans is to open up marriage to all consenting adults of non-direct relations.

Why no polygamy or no incestuous relationships? Because this whole set of laws was created around a social construct of two adults forming a couple, and with the idea that incest is wrong. So for slightly different reasons we argue against these two:

Heterosexuals can choose a single partner for the institution of marriage. Homosexuals seek parity with this right, to have the ability to select a partner of their choosing. Currently nobody has the right to marry more than one person, so thus the law is fair.

While there are millions of advocates of Gay Marriage, I think people would be hard pressed to find more than a handful of advocates of incest. Also cutting off a gender from marriage removes 50% of the people in the world from whom an individual has the tight to marry, whereas cutting off incest is only a small number of individuals.

So robvat, as you can see the gay marriage argument really is about equal rights and access to a social/governmental construct currently only heterosexuals have.

I sadly doubt however you are the type who can understand anything beyond your limited worldviews.

Posted by: pdxgeek | May 27, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

This happens every time you bait someone? And you do this on purpose to feel good about yourself? Repeatedly you bait people to get them to insult you? Wow pussycat, you really have no self esteem do you?

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Back on "The List" then for you ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 7:36 PM | Report abuse

robvat:

You see, they think that disagreeing with homosexuality IS a personal insult and attack.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD:

Are you now going to answer my question about Sonia Sotomayor too?"

no

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

No robvat what is funny is that you were completely bating me. Of course bating someone is insulting, so you got insulted back bigot. So do you always bait people with strawman arguments to make yourself feel like you won something? For some reason baiting someone until they insult you makes you feel good about yourself? That's whats funny about the entire situation bigot. You purposly set yourself up to be insulted, and then you feel good when you get someone to insult you? That is hilarious.

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Did you notice greenmansf, I never insulted you or attacked you. I disagreed with you. But it seems I'm not allowed to. But this happens every single time.

Posted by: robvat | May 27, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Are you now going to answer my question about Sonia Sotomayor too?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse

"OK, if you don't want to make the rules, I will. Marriage only between single, adult men and women. It's been done that way in all societies for thousands of years. There I did it."

What's wrong with my definition? It's been done that way for thousands of years

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

adaption = adoption?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 7:29 PM | Report abuse

"Just think, robvat, all NAMBLA or any other group of sexual deviants need to do is convince 36% of us that "allowing them to marry" would have no effect on society. Talk about a low threshhold! More than 36% think that Elvis is still alive ; )"

Well, it certainly higher than your standard for popular support needed to block a judge's confirmation.

___________________________


"YOU claimed (among other unsupported allegations) that Sotomayor "seems to have broad support of most American's [SIC]." I asked a simple question as to your assumptions. If you really want to get into it:

http://www.cnn.com/ Quick Vote

Do you agree with President Obama's selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice?

Yes 66% (296,597)

No 34% (154,193)

Total Votes: 450,790

So, what exactly is your definition of "broad", "support", "most", and "American"?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 12:27 PM"

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 7:29 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

That was a "counterargument"?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

What's funny greenmansf, is I was partially baiting you. I knew if wouldn't be long before the insults came. I'm sitting here laughing my butt off. It happens everytime.

Because I disagree with you I'm a bigot? Is it possible that I may happen to be gay. You don't know that. There are gays who oppose gay marriage. Are they bigots too?

20 years ago, gay activists/groups protested for similar rights as heterosexuals (employment, housing, etc). Opponents claimed their real ultimate agenda was gay marriage and adaption. The activists claimed that was BULL and it was just frivolous arguments made by homophobes. They claimed their goal was not and never will be marriage. Guess what?

OK, if you don't want to make the rules, I will. Marriage only between single, adult men and women. It's been done that way in all societies for thousands of years. There I did it.

But again, I would like you to set the rules.

Posted by: robvat | May 27, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

"And since they can't debunk my argument JakeD, they are implicitly agreeing with me. They never have a real counter argument."

What about my counterargument that a guarantee that the definition of marriage will be written in stone is a moronic standard given the drastic changes it has undergone since its inception?

Of course, I said it in a sarcastic way, so the people who picked up on it are bit more intelligent meaning they are probably the ones who agree with me already.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 7:26 PM | Report abuse

pdxgeek:

1) Homosexuals do have the same rights as heterosexuals (I can't marry someone of the opposite sex either).

2) I am not using a religious argument against same-sex "marriage" (see my "secular" argument below).

3) The STATE does have a legitimate legal interest in the prevention of lots of activity between two (or more) consenting adults.

4) Please see my support of interracial marriage below.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Just think, robvat, all NAMBLA or any other group of sexual deviants need to do is convince 36% of us that "allowing them to marry" would have no effect on society. Talk about a low threshhold! More than 36% think that Elvis is still alive ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

The Gay Marriage issue exemplifies the right wing's hypocrisy. From an American perspective:

- Equal protection under the law. Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.

- Freedom of religion. Some religions believe Same Sex Marriages are fine. A religious argument cannot be used against same sex marriage in an American context.

- A third party has no legitimate legal standing in the prevention of a same sex marriage between two consenting adults. The issue simply is not their concern.

The worst part is how the right wing screams Judicial activism. Apparently they have never heard of the concept of "Tyranny of the Majority". We have our civil rights judicially because sometimes 51% of the public might believe that a minority should be persecuted.

There was a time when 51% of people believed interracial marriage should be illegal. Just as we look back at these small minded individuals now... my only consolation is that when we look back on this period of time, opponents of Gay marriage will look like the bigots they are.

Posted by: pdxgeek | May 27, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Sorry robvat, I didn't realize you just another bigot trolling. Your fears are possible, not probable. Prove that they will happen idiot and I will then prove they will not. You set this up so that you cannot be proven wrong, then gloat that you cannot be proven wrong. If you need to feel superior and correct about something, why not stick to facts rather than fantasy? Right because you are not capable of living in reality, because your fantasy scares the crap out of you. I would recommend changing your fantasy life pumpkin, it will make living so much easier for you. You are a moral coward, and that is sad.

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse

I am implicitly (and explictly) agreeing with you, robvat.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

robvat, you set the rules on your arguement. You want your fear of possible future events to be proven false. How is that allowing anyone else to set the rules. They are your fears, not reality. How can someone argue against your fears? I don't mean to dismiss your fear of future events that might happen, but how do I prove to you that they won't happen? You cannot prove they will happen can you? If not, why would you assume I can prove that they will not happen. As I have stated repeatedly, they may happen. If your fears come true, why can we not as a society deal with them when they happen?

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

A rather spurious argument greensmanf. What JakeD and I are saying is logical and probable. We are letting you make the rules but again, you refuse to. Why? If you don't then who? Who makes the rules? Who makes the final rules? A judge? The Supreme Court? The President? And once those rules are in place, how do you make sure they can't be changed? A different Supreme Court or President, etc.

Posted by: robvat | May 27, 2009 7:11 PM | Report abuse

robvat:

There are ALREADY organizations promoting polygamy, incest and other deviant sexual behavior ...

Don't forget about NAMBLA

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Nobody is implicitly agreeing with you robvat. Can you guarantee your slippery slope will happen? If not are you implicitly agreeing with me? Of course not. But you assume that I am implicitly agreeing with you because I refuse to fear the unknown like you? Please justify how I am implicitly agreeing with you about your fear of the unkown. Please show how dealing with the present rather than your fantasy of the future is in any way an agreement.

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

A reasonable man doesn't live in fear of what might possibly happen Jake. He reasonably takes situations at face value and works to resolve that situtation without bringing up fear of the unknown. You don't work that way, but that doesn't mean nobody can be reasonable. Again, can you guarantee that polygamy is right around the corner? Even if it is, why do we need to deal with your fear of polygamy now since it isn't happening now? Why can we not deal with that when and if it happens?

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

And since they can't debunk my argument JakeD, they are implicitly agreeing with me. They never have a real counter argument. I even let them set the rules but they won't, because if they do, then they have to start thinding about reality and what the ramifactions might be. It's just easier to call someone a homophobe instead of coming up with a logical argument in support of their position (and what the long term implications of what that position may be).

Posted by: robvat | May 27, 2009 7:03 PM | Report abuse

You can guarantee that polygamy is right around the corner Jake? You have some sort of ESP going on? I don't. You cannot guarantee that anything will come up next or ever. It may or it may not. Again, fear of the unknown, of what might happen cannot be argued for or against. It isn't fact, just fear. You can live in fear, as you seem want to do, or you can deal with issues as they come up. That is your choice, but it is hardly a valid reason to deny equal access to all US citizens. Currently we allow convicted murderers and rapists on death row the right to marry. What would happen if they actually were released from prison? Would the kill their spouses? See, you can fear any possibility in the future, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

If not "know" then "should know" (I will use a "reasonable man" standard and give them the benefit of the doubt ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

You see, robvat, they can't guarantee you're wrong, because they know that polygamy is right around the corner.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Also robvot, can you guarantee that you are correct? Of course not, nor can I guarantee you are wrong. There are no guarantees in life, contry to what JakeD believes. It is all about change and adaption. That is how life has been throughout history.

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

"All I request is someone come up with the DEFINITIVE definition of marriage. I would like to see someone make the rules so they are permanent and a GAURANTEE that the rules will never change."

Marriage is a contract between a white male and a white female. The marriage must be maintained for the life of the woman. (the man can remarry if he outlives the woman, but not vice versa). Furthermore, the woman becomes subservient to the man and essentially becomes his property.

There we go.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

robvat, gay marriage is already legal in parts of the country. There has never been a definative definition of marriage in the history of man. Why do you need one now? Why shouldn't people be aforded equal access to marriage? As to your slippery slope argument, there is no way to counter argue against your fear of the unknown. Why not wait to see what happens and deal with other people wanting marriage equity as it comes up? Marriage used to mean one man and many women. The man was actually paid to take the women off the hand of her parents, she was basically sold to them. Would you prefer we went back to that definition of marriage? How about marriage as arrainged by the parents of both spouses? That was also the norm for a long time. So was keeping races seperated by marriage. Currently we expect that both spouses who enter marriage do so of their own free will, but that is recent in the history of mankind. It isn't even the norm today in the world, just here in the US. Since our country is only a couple of hundred years old, we haven't actually had a clear and firm definition of marriage that has remained immutable at all. Why do you need an immutable definition of kinship? What does that accomplish for you?

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

It has always amazed me that tweaking a question like this one can produce such wide variations in poll results.

This is not one of those obscure bond issue amendments that mysteriously shows up on your ballot on election day. ("Should the requirement that state tertiary roads running through farmland in Onondaga County be constructed on a 6-inch bed of gravel at least 3/8 inches in diameter be amended to provide that...")

Doesn't everybody already know what the gay marriage issue is about and how they feel about it?

Posted by: Itzajob | May 27, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

robvat:

That's exactly what I asked "bklyndan22". There will be no stopping two adults from incestuous "marriage" / three (or more) adults from polygamous "marriage". Where will it end?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Please anybody, debunk my argument. Can you gaurantee I'm wrong?

Posted by: robvat | May 27, 2009 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Please anybody, debunk my argument. Can you gaurantee I'm wrong?

Posted by: robvat | May 27, 2009 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Please anybody, debunk my argument. Can you gaurantee I'm wrong?

Posted by: robvat | May 27, 2009 6:44 PM | Report abuse

I think you are safe now Jake. billy seems to be gone so you don't have to answer his question. Dodged a bullet there didn't you old timer? Anyway, you keep trying to prove your heterosexuality Jake, as I said, it does wonders for the marriage equity movement.

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

All I request is someone come up with the DEFINITIVE definition of marriage. I would like to see someone make the rules so they are permanent and a GAURANTEE that the rules will never change.

Because once Gay Marriage is allowed or made legal, anything and everything becomes an open ended to the whims of certain groups or ACTIVIST judges. They can/will be able to decide on their own what is legal and what's not. Nothing to prevent a lawsuit from a two consenting adults (for example, devorced father and daugter) demanding they be allowed to marry and a judge agreeing. Then what are the rules and who makes them. And I gurantee eventually something like this will happen. The suit will use the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution as a basis of their suit.

Posted by: robvat | May 27, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

7900rmc:

Would you prefer I add you to the list of people I won't answer questions from?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

billy8:

Are you still around?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

I am on the clock Jaker, but I am my own boss. And this is somehow relevant? You ignore me until I leave, then try to get the last word in huh? Those control issues you display do not seem very healthy Jake.

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Oh I'm done questioning you, Jakey-poo. You showed your true colors by running away from my earlier questions, which were plenty civil. You've made in abundantly clear than the only way humanity is going to experience social justice, equality, fairness, and compassion for others is over your dead body. Don't keep us waiting too long, kay?

Posted by: benjaminanderson | May 27, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Prop. 8 and these polls is the same problem you have with any civil rights infringement: you can't leave the determination of rights for a minority up to a majority vote. If we had, we'd still be riding in segregated buses and Obama wouldn't even be allowed to vote, much less run for office. So these polls are worthless wastes of time -- they just collect the uninformed opinions of ignoramuses like this guy, JakeD. (And why you guys even engage him is a mystery to me -- he's just seeking attention by posting outrageous nonsense, like a toddler who acts out.)

Posted by: 7900rmc | May 27, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

I thought you were on the clock?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

thanks for the lesson on what constitutes "civil debate" bigot. That was hilarious! Absolutely priceless!

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

For the record, "STFU" is not, technically speaking, civil debate.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Back to work for me. Thanks for all your help in our struggle for equality Jake. You have no idea how much you help the cause you fight so strongly against. You help us with each and every post you make. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

billy8:

You quoted from only my second post on this very long thread -- all of the answers to your other questions have been posted -- for the last time, if you still have questions, just let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Just as I suspected: JakeD is a gutless puddle of bile. Despite his protestations to the contrary, he won't answer questions. He just likes to empty his mental colostomy bag on the rest of us and hobble away with a self-satisfied smirk on his face. No wonder he he has to harange strangers anonymously: his wife, kids, grandkids, coworkers, golf buddies, fellow drunks down at the Moose Lodge long ago told him to STFU already. Well, JakeD, I know I'm not the first (and I probably won't be the last), but on behalf of the thinking posters here: STFU already.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | May 27, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Jake, you assume billy8 didn't read all of your posts, without any evidence. What makes you think he didn't read all of them? Right, it is just a ploy of yours to refuse to answer a question put to you under your very strict guidelines that you keep changing. He followed your rules, and you won't answer because you somehow "know" that he didn't read all of your posts.

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Jake, your analogy to a Catholic church refusing to marry two of it's flock is false. Homophobic churches will not allow homosexuals in their flock, nor do they have to allow homosexuals membership in their flock, so having two in a homophobic church who demand to marry is never going to happen. Even if a gay couple pulls this type of stunt, our constitutions at both the state and federal levels will be used, correctly, by the churches to deny that these people are memebers in good standing. Freedom of religion is a great thing in this country. It is too bad you don't grasp the concept.

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27:

Think of it this way -- if the Catholic Church refused to marry a white Catholic female and an African-American Catholic male based on his race, there would be a federal lawsuit filed -- you are exactly right that is where we are headed with gay "rights".

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

wow, Jake. You feel a need to control this board don't you? You are nothing more than a common coward and a bully, . You poor little man.

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

What question did I not answer, JakeD? I do note that this caveat (...only if you answer my questions...) was not part of your earlier formulation. I guess the big print giveth and the small print taketh away, huh?

Posted by: benjaminanderson | May 27, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

For the record, anyone who asks me a direct question that I am not responding to (on this or any other thread here) has already NOT answered a prior question of mine to them -- that's what happens when your actions lead to consequences -- as I told billy8 (and everyone else who does answer my questions in a civil manner), I will gladly answer any questions you may have of me.

P.S. to billy8: are you done reading yet?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

amitchel:

You mean "YES" on Prop. H8? Please see my second post on this thread for the problem with what you think is a Solomon-like decision (maybe if Solomon had actually gone through with cutting the baby in half ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

What's the matter Jake? Can't answer a civil question? Afraid to admit you are wrong? Please explain.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | May 27, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27, I'll assume you are not trying to be misleading when you say that a majority oppose abortion, and are just unclear on the meaning of the poll you are referring to. A majority identified as "pro-life," but a healthy and consistent 60% continue to believe that abortion should be available at least in some circumstances. The distinction would seem to suggest that many people would not themselves choose to have an abortion (of course, people act differently when it is not some armchair theory, but that's a different topic), but would not criminalize it for others. I can't speak for the operation of hate crime laws in Canada, though your examples sound more like Limbaugh blather than reality, but I think our 1st Amendment affords plenty of protections that set us apart from other legal systems.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | May 27, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I happen to agree with the measured decision of the California Supreme Court - The will of the people in a democratic election said NO to prop 8 ; yet the rights of 18,000 people who already were legally married prior to prop 8 were not set aside. This decision truly reflected the wisdom of Solomon ... now we will have to wait until the people of California get another opportunity at a new proposition in the new election cycle. Maybe 2010 or 2012.

Posted by: amitchel | May 27, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

So mibrooks, you claim that your worst fears are coming true in Canada? Well that is a seperate country isn't it? Yes it is. Why not let them worry about their country and you stick with your country? Canada and the US do not have identical laws covering religious freedoms. See how this works? Each country can decide for themselves how to solve the religious freedom issue. Since you don't like what you percieve to be a lack of protection for religious freedoms in Canada, I suggest you do not move there permanantly and your problem with their laws will remain moot.

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks, you poor frightened man. None of what you say is happening is actually happening. No it isn't. Marriage equity is the law in Mass. and has been for five years. Nobody is suing churches there to force them to perform marriage ceremonies that they are unwilling to perform. No minister is being arrested for preaching against homosexuality. None of that has happened except you believe it is happening. Whose problem is that? Oh, and religion, a chosen behavior, is already covered by the constitutions of the states and the US. We have a long and strong tradition of religious freedom in this country. That will hardly be negated by allowing all citizens the ability to enter a civil contract of kinship with the person of their choice.

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1 - The laws enacted thus far emulate those of Canada. The result of those laws has been lawsuits against churches and ministers. Worse, those laws have been successfully used to criminalize sermons that would define homosexuality as a sin, under the guise of banning "hate speech". I'm telling you, these cultural wars are opening up a can of worms that wont stay shut. Today, right now, the voters are pretty set in their views about issues like abortion and "gay rights". A slim majority of voters disapprove of abortion and look at the trouble we have had with that issue! A significantly larger majority, somewhere between 55% and 75%, are opposed to same sex marriage, which means the proponents of this are going to see all sorts of unintended consequences come back to haunt them.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 27, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Okay JakeD, here's a question:

Do you recognize that marriage between two consenting adults is fundementally different than marriage between children or animals or any other slippery slope argument you can make? That, like contract law in general, a marriage where there is no consent can not be legally enforceable? And if you do, why do you persist is using such examples? Please note that striking JakeD as "icky" is not a legal concept.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | May 27, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

billy8:

Just to clarify, when you get caught up, let me know if you still have any questions.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

FYI: my May 27, 2009 5:24 PM post to "coloradodog" was misdirected and should have been addressed to "Coloradem1" (assuming that's a different person) re: your May 27, 2009 5:18 PM post.

I hereby invoke the Mailbox Rule!

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

You cannot answer the question billy8 posed to you Jake? Answer for us all how marriage between to men or two women would negatively affect society. Why am I not surprised that you are a coward as well as a self hating homosexual?

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Again, for everyone else who will return me the same common courtesy, I will always answer any and all civil questions to me.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

billy8:

Thank you for reading my second post on this thread -- if government gets out of the "marriage business" altogether, then that impacts everyone -- but, by all means, please keep reading for my posts stating I am in favor of interracial marriage and, when you get caught up, let me know if you still have any questions.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I am wondering Jake, since you are so close to death these days, do you see this as some sort of last desperate attempt to prove your heterosexuality to the world? It certainly comes across that way in your posts. Good for you!

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Even apart from the polling, it is a legal and moral conundrum to allow 18,000 homosexual "marriages" when the Constitution now says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse


There was a time when the law considered a black man less than a full human being. That wasn't right either.
What I'd like to know is, how is gay marriage going to affect society at all? If the law said the Catholic Church had to perform the ceremonies, I'd understand the outrage, but who cares what other adults do with their lives? I'll just never understand why people want to control other people's lives.

Posted by: billy8 | May 27, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

You're right, thinman, we're never going to convince JakeD of anything. Not only is he proudly set in his ways but he's actually on the far fringes of even rightwingers, being a big fan of Alan Keyes and some kooky neo-nazi party in California he likes to pretend is a potent electoral force. Nevertheless, I don't want undecided readers scrolling through the comments thinking JakeD is some sort of insightful thinker whose arguments we can't counter. The fact is his arguments have been countered numerous times and he knows it, but, well, this is basically his life. That and golf, I guess.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | May 27, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Denying rights to your fellow Americans, your fellow human beings, is more important than health care or the economy Jake or any of the other ills facing our nation? You certainly need to feel superior to someone don't you big boy?

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

dlpetersdc:

Banning same-sex "marriage" is certainly more important to me than health care, education, environment, economic development, Social Security and Medicare, especially Obama's version of all that.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh and Jake, please provide us all with your source on how people change their sexuality. You cannot because it doesn't exist. No it doesn't. Even the "successful" cases admit that they are still homosexual but are living as if they were heterosexual. And those success stories end after a couple of years living a lie for the most part. These cure folks don't keep records after the first couple of years of a converts new life. Why is that? Right because they don't have a good success rate after those first couple of years. Oh and how successful are they? Well a couple of the bigger gay conversion groups have a stellar record of about 11% success. 11% of their conversions are successful for a couple of years. And this is somehow proof that people have changed their sexuality? Good for you!

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I believe it would be helpful if some legitimate impartial news organization (are there any of those left these days?) conducted a poll on this issue and then asked people to rank where they place this issue (gay marriage) in relationship to where they place it among other issues facing the country. It seems to me that while most people may have a position on the issue, i suspect that the vast majority of Americans are not willing to 'fall on the sword' over gay marriage, regardless of what side of this issue they may fall. While i recognize the passions and positions on both sides of this issue, i find it kind of disheartening that the country is going to be consumed for months and months on this issue while other issues such as health care, education, environment, economic development, social security and medicare will continue to languish.

Posted by: dlpetersdc | May 27, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I would not agree that jakey's sexuality is common since he needs a little blue pill to function. That makes it deviant.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 27, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, your sexuality might be the norm, and not deviant, but you don't seem to grasp what that actually means. It only means your sexuality is common. It doesn't mean it is better or worse, just more common. So since you are simply common, I should be denied the right to enter a civil contract of kinship? That's pretty much your argument. That makes less sense than the christianista cry of religious freedom, but hey, if it works for you great. You just feel smug in your belief that your common sexuality is the only one that should be afforded marriage rights. Good for you pussycat.

Posted by: greenmansf | May 27, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

LOL, coloradodog:

The "burden" is upon the PETITIONERS. Even apart from DOMA, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this: Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972).

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Why do any of you even respond to JakeD?

Ignore him. Have the conversation around him. Act as though he is not here.

Posted by: thinman1 | May 27, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

How utterly absurd. How many straight folks have submitted their relationship to a poll of the general society before they were married? (I dare say that if Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley would have never been allowed to marry, but I digress)

Marriage has been designated by the US Supreme Court to be a civil right. The burden of proof should be on those opposed to gays and lesbians being allowed to marry to show just cause for disallowing such marriages. And it needs to be a better reason than, "it's icky" which pretty much summarizes the right wings' arguments on this subject.

Posted by: Coloradem1 | May 27, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I could not get by the imagery in MikeB's post of gay marrioage being rammed down the public's throat...

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 27, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. Yes, yes, I'm sure you can cite fringe evangelical conversion ministries, but there actually is a scientific consensus out there whether you choose to believe it or not. There are many examples in the animal world as well as the human of homosexuality, so it seems to be something inherent. The best argument as to why homosexuality is not chosen though is that why would such a cross section of Americans, of all classes, ethnicities and genders, choose to be maligned, despised, harassed, and sometimes murdered for something that they could elect against? As to your slippery slope arguments, frankly I could care less if consenting adults want to have plural marriages, but I do think the state would have an interest in limiting benefits for multiple spouses. As to animals, children, etc, they aren't consenting adults, and the notion of consent is pretty straightforward and uncontroversial in the common law. You know this, but you like to cite these examples anyway, despite their irrelevance. How cruel and lacking in empathy you must be to use archaic medical terms like deviant (while hiding behind your little dictionary definition as if you meant no hurt). I'll make you a deal, you stick to the commonly accepted and less offensive terminology of the current debate, and I won't use the term "coot" or "pops" or "fossil" to describe you. Deal?

Posted by: benjaminanderson | May 27, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 writes
"There is absolutely no protection for ministers o churches that refuse to marry a gay couple."

I don't think that's true. You can't make a minister perform a marriage ceremony. Didn't the Newt have to convert to Catholicism to marry his new, blushing bride in the Catholic church?

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 27, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Jake D, somebody needs to put a cap in that pathetic 3rd grade educated rearend of yours. What a douchbag.

Posted by: dem4life1 | May 27, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised nobody's posted this yet: "heterosexuality isn't normal, it's just common." - dorothy parker.

In short, Jake, your definition of normal is dead wrong. You use it as an approximation of the mathematical concept of the median, when the actual definition is "within a standard deviation of the average".

You may think that's just semantics, but the fact that you do just goes to show how much of the world has passed you by.

Posted by: kszimmerman | May 27, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I am retired with plenty of time to waste here (I will be golfing tomorrow though ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - Just wait until the gerbils adopt necrophilia or bestiality as their next cause du jour. The gay rights crowd has always sought a space under the umbrella of racial minorities and it is surprising how many leaders of genuinely oppressed minorities have bought into that. Now, I happen to think it is no one's business if a same sex couple wants to set up a household, even if they want a partnership, but I cannot support the notion of gay marriage, especially as it is presently being presented. There is absolutely no protection for ministers o churches that refuse to marry a gay couple. Likewise, some are going so far as to make it a felony to preach, from the pulpit, that homosexuality is a sin. They want that defined as a hate crime. All of this is a bridge too far and most people wont go there. If my hunch is correct, during the next phase of the cultural battles, you will see a flurry of lawsuits against churches and ministers in those states where gay marriage has been rammed down the public's throat.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 27, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

What a waste of time to let jakey lead the discussion on this blog. He's nothing but a "baiter"; just trying to hijack the topics over to his right-wing talking points agenda.

I wonder how much they pay him to be on the blog all day?

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 27, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

bklyndan22:

Did you see my question(s) to you?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I'm not talking about re-instituting the death penalty for buggery.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Also from Wikipedia:

Social norms are the behavioral expectations and cues within a society or group. This sociological term has been defined as "the rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors." These rules may be explicit or implicit.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I am also not left-handed : )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

outlawtorn103:

I didn't say everything that is "deviant" should be outlawed.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

"Gay partnerships is what most European countries allow, by the way. "Gay marriage", on the other hand, is legal almost nowhere and virtually every society on the face of the earth is opposed to it."

According to Wikipedia, gay marriage is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden. Several other countries allow other forms of partnership (civil unions in various forms).

Posted by: Blarg | May 27, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

It's two separate concepts, which come down to IMMUTABLE:

Bans on interracial marriage were designed to keep races apart, and that was bad for society. The historic definition of marriage is rooted in bringing genders together, which is good for society. Race is not a fundamental quality or aspect of marriage, but gender is.

Allowing interracial marriage did not call for a RE-DEFINITION but rather an affirmation of marriage. It says males and females should be able to marry, regardless of race. Same-sex "marriage" is something very different -- a RE-DEFINITION of marriage.

(from "Marriage on Trial")

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

Careful now with that "norm = most people" bit. Once anyone on here finds out you're left-handed (10% of the population) your argument is dead on arrival.

Posted by: outlawtorn103 | May 27, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

mattfugazi:

I didn't say the "belief" was deviant. I said the "practice" was, even though I have nothing against interracial marriage.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else (who is willing to answer MY questions in return)?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

You can't possibly believe that "most" Americans believe that it's a deviation from the norm for blacks and whites to marry.

Posted by: mattfugazi | May 27, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

jakey, do you define "most people" as 50% +1?

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 27, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

mattfugazi:

Norm = most people. If you have a specific query, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

You are taking my comment out of context.

For everyone else who needs to be reminded of the arrests / violence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VziklUbtHAE

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Regarding interracial couples being deviant from the norms... I seem to have lost my list of these norms. Where do I go to find out what practices, which are perfectly legal and enjoyed by millions of fulfilled people, are deviant?

Posted by: mattfugazi | May 27, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

You see, Jaked thinks racial intermarriage is 'deviant.' Bet you didn't think there was anyone alive today that neanderthal, didja people?
But the old boy is like this fella culberson here:

'Last night, C-SPAN aired the lasted segment of Students & Leaders series, with Rep. John Culberson (R-TX). Addressing a group of D.C. students, he repeatedly emphasized the need for less government interference in Americans’ lives. “I’m very focused on eliminating — shutting down as much of the federal government’s functions as I can,” Culberson said, while espousing state and local control.

However, when a student asked Culberson about state control over gay marriage, Culberson rapidly descended into incoherence. He began by declaring, “It’s up to the states.” But by the end of his rambling answer, he tried to explain why the federal government “cannot permit” a state like Vermont to make its own rules. All this while repeating that people’s “privacy is fundamental”:

'CULBERSON: Well under the 10th amendment, the states have a first responsibility for providing for public safety, public health, public morality. All issues that just affect the people within that state. It’s up to the states. And you either follow the constitution or you don’t. [...]

Federal law cannot permit — if one state, Vermont, wants to do that, you can’t let that cross state lines. You’ve got to let — frankly, a lot of these issues have got to be left up to the states. But the federal government cannot permit for example — The federal government has a legitimate role in interstate commerce. And that’s where the federal government comes in. I think the federal government can’t recognize — shouldn’t recognize it, it’s just a bad idea. And uh — But fundamentally, the right of privacy’s fundamental. I’m not interested — what people do at home’s their own business.;

Culberson’s response reminded ThinkProgress of a famous scene from the movie Billy Madison in which a debate judge tells Adam Sandler’s character, “Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to” your “rambling, incoherent response."

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

mattfugazi:

With the backlash of continued protests (especially arrests and violence), I'd wager LESS tolerant of homosexuals in general and same-sex "marriage" in particular.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Where's "chrisfox8" when you need him?!

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

jakey, whatever you want to do with your sister is up to the two of you. Why do you want it to be my business?

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 27, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Any poll is just a snapshot, often dependent on tendentious wording, especially when you're haggling over 40 or 46 percent. True trends are over longer periods, and we all know it's a fallacy to extend past trendlines indefinitely into the future. Given the unknowability of the future, we can only play the Vegas game-- would you place your money on Americans becoming more tolerant or less tolerant of same-sex marriage? Websites that allow you to do this and win money off the odds predict election outcomes, for example, better than any polling around.

Posted by: mattfugazi | May 27, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

coloradodog:

I have never been against a black person marrying a white person (of the opposite sex), but since it is still not the "norm: it is, indeed, another examples of "deviant". It is, more importantly, a perfect example of "immutable" which homosexual behavior is NOT. Let me know if you have any questions.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

bklyndan22 (or this one):

Whatever an adult male and three female sheep choose to do privately with each other sexually is assuredly none of the government's business, nor should it be?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

The dynasty of posters fighting legal rights for gay unions are the heirs of those in the 50's who though a marriage between a black and white person was "deviant" as well.

Posted by: coloradodog | May 27, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

bklyndan22 (how about this one):

Whatever an adult male and two adult females choose to do privately with each other sexually is assuredly none of the government's business, nor should it be?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

mattfugazi:

Apology accepted.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

bklyndan22:

So, whatever an adult brother and adult sister choose to do privately with each other sexually is assuredly none of the government's business, nor should it be?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Sorry-- I'm 37.

Posted by: mattfugazi | May 27, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

As usual, "drivel" is playing fast and loose with the facts. A slim majority of young voters (54%) approves of laws allowing gay partnership. There is virtually no difference in their opposition to gay marriage from their parents. Moreover, Chris and the rest of the liberal" community are cherry picking polls. The CNN poll, the most questionable of them all, has a 45-55 disapproval count and that poll rolls legal partnerships in with gay marriage, the Opinion Dynamic poll shows only a 33% approval rating for gay marriage, and the CBS poll only has a 28% approval count. Gay partnerships is what most European countries allow, by the way. "Gay marriage", on the other hand, is legal almost nowhere and virtually every society on the face of the earth is opposed to it. What the homosexual community is about, right now, is NOT acceptance, it is legislating APPROVAL for their lifestyle. In addition to be wrong headed, recent polling data shows it is sparking a backlash against homosexuality and that might be a very dangerous outcome of this whole campaign.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 27, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

mattfugazi:

immutable

--adjective: not capable of or susceptible to change

cf. http://exodus.to/help/?option=com_content&task=view&id=327&Itemid=147

If you won't tell me how old you are, at least read Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Have a nice life.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Jake is one of the dying old guard, clinging to the culture of 100 years ago. But soon, he and his ilk will die off and the young ones, who don't think twice about gay marriage, will prevail.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

This is a phony moral conundrum. Just legalize civil unions thus removing the onus from religions being forced to perform marriages that contradict their principles. The legal relationship would ensure that medical and inheritance issues could be handled smoothly. As for the "man & woman" part of the California Constitution, I'd ask if that supersedes the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution (I assume the 14th Amendment is not a mystery to you, or that federal protections take precedence over state law). Or that messy part in the Declaration about all being created equal. The deviant argument is a red herring--what two people choose to do privately with each other sexually is assuredly none of the government's business, nor should it be.

Posted by: bklyndan22 | May 27, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"77. "

Same difference.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Look, I can't believe I'm writing this in 2009, but here goes. Being gay is a sexual orientation that has been demonstrated to be inborn across many cultures. This was the reasoning by which the Supreme Court threw out state and local sodomy laws: that gay orientation was an immutable characteristic and to single out a population with this characteristic whose behavior was NOT HURTING ANYBODY ELSE was beyond what the Constitution permits.
I never go around like some of the other commenters saying "liberals do this" and "conservatives do that", which generates more heat than light. However, I think that someone who types over and over again "deviant sexual behavior" as a substitute for the noun "homosexuality" or "same-sex marriage" **does** enjoy inflicting pain and insulting others. (Probably while jerking madly away all over the keyboard.)

Posted by: mattfugazi | May 27, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

jakey, what in the world makes you think that your morals are any better than anyone else?

Ever hear of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That goes for everyone; not just those YOU approve of. Get over yourself!

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 27, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

I'm not being "moral" as I can certainly back up my argument with secular reasons -- from the studies about homosexuals changing their orientation to the slippery-slope, if we can't stop this DEVIANT behavior, there's no stopping other DEVIANT behavior -- also, I am not implying anything "immoral" by the word "deviant":

–adjective 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation

VTDuffman asked for a "simple" answer, so I gave it. I am not going to get into the long "complicated" answer within the confines of a comment box on a WaPo political blog. Suffice it to say that if you want the legal case Olsen/Boies are up against, start with: Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972).

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I'd also want to know the difference in the methodology between the polls, as well as the wording.

For example, polls that did not contact cell phone-only users during the election consistently underreported Obama's support. The reasoning behind this was thought to be that cell phone users tended to be younger than the average voter, and since much of Obama's support was in this demographic, those polls were usually off by several percentage points. (The Gallup poll cited here does say that people with cell phones only were interviewed, as well as those with land lines.)

However, I think Drindl's correct-- the data consistently show that younger people tend to favor legal marriage for gay and lesbian Americans pretty overwhelmingly-- 59% in this poll, for respondents ages 18-29. Perhaps older people were oversampled.

It IS just "a matter of time." Acceptance of gay and lesbian marriage is inevitable, and I for one welcome the end of the denial of civil rights to a large proportion of the American population. (I'm speaking as a straight, middle-aged woman in a heterosexual marriage, that is!)

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | May 27, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I don't know about anyone else but I get a little nauseous when jakey decides that HIS morals are the standard that we all should live by.

I find jakey's politics deviant but I also think the constitution protects his right to be stupid.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 27, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

77. How old are you?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

"Deviant sexual behavior"???? What are you-- 100 years old?

Posted by: mattfugazi | May 27, 2009 3:52 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

The law being discussed is the 14th Amendment to the UNITED STATES Constitution -- STATE guarantees, well-above the minimum thresholds required under such FEDERAL law, are worthless -- besides, didn't the STATE Supreme Court just rule yesterday that same-sex "marriages" can no longer be peerformed in California?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"Because deviant sexual behavior is not a "protected class"."


The law being discussed neither defines nor addresses behavior. It is limited to the genders of participants in a contract. Nothing more & nothing left. The CA Supreme Court noted in its recent opinion that the state has no compelling interest regulating the genders of participants in a marriage contract. That is rather close to saying that laws defining genders in such a contract violate the equal protection clause.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 27, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

By all means PLEASE take this case to the ROBERTS Court.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I thought that I just answered that?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"Even apart from the polling, it is a legal and moral conundrum to allow 18,000 homosexual "marriages" when the Constitution now says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.""

To solve the above, the below must be answered.

"How is denying homosexual couples protections under the law that are afforded to heterosexual couples not a clear violation of the 14th Amendment?"

therefore

"it will come. It's only a matter of time."


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 27, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Simple answer:

Because deviant sexual behavior is not a "protected class".

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Simple question that no one can ever seem to give me the answer to:

How is denying homosexual couples protections under the law that are afforded to heterosexual couples not a clear violation of the 14th Amendment?

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 27, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

P.S. 36% who say it would have no affect are AMBIVALENT (at least) and therefore, cannot be counted as "in favor" of deviant sexual behavior.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I was quoting SF Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Jake thrills at the idea of inflicting pain, as do all rightwingers. It's the only fun they have, the whole object of their lives.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Let me be patient with you Chris, and point this out. If you add the 13% that say it would make things better, with the 36 percent who say it would have no affect [and therefore, are in favor] you get 49%, which is, you see, bigger than 48%. Can you add?

Which means that the population is divided roughly in half -- but over time, is moving strongly in that direction.

FINALLY -- take this into account. You are talking here about ALL respondents, which is invalid. Take a look at the stats on YOUNGER people and you will see that they are stunningly lopsidedly in FAVOR of gay marriage - and so you see, it will come. It's only a matter of time, just like interracial marriage was.

Thirteen percent said it would make things better, 48 percent said it would make things worse and 36 percent said allowing gay people to marry would have no effect on society.

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Even apart from the polling, it is a legal and moral conundrum to allow 18,000 homosexual "marriages" when the Constitution now says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"Whether you like it or not" BABY!!!

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company