Jon Stewart on Prop 8

I just finished watching the whole episode.

Jon Stewart is just brilliant. He knows how to mix humor with political commentary in just the right proportions.

Indeed, sometimes the only way to keep up with all the events without going nuts is just to laugh at it all.

Apparently I can't type. PIMFs

darthstar Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:31:09am

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall...and those drapes aren't helping either"

Brilliant.

webevintage Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:33:09am

The show on Tuesday(?) was pretty brilliant too where he went after the Republicans for voting against the bill to fund health care for first responders on 9/11.

SpaceJesus Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:33:59am

dear poster known as "Buck"

If you see this post, I just want to let you know that I left a present for you back at my LGF page (the one about blood libel), give it a gander will you?

Four More Tears Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:36:39am

re: #4 webevintage

The show on Tuesday(?) was pretty brilliant too where he went after the Republicans for voting against the bill to fund health care for first responders on 9/11.

He went after the Democrats in that segment, too.

Cato the Elder Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:37:18am

Hey, who knew that nine out of ten LGF Pages are by Mandy Manners?

Walter L. Newton Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:37:53am

re: #1 Joo-LiZ

I just finished watching the whole episode.

Jon Stewart is just brilliant. He knows how mix humor with political commentary in just the proportions.

Indeed, sometimes the only way to keep up with all the events without going nuts is just to laugh at it all.

Jobs Picture Worsens With 131,000 Losses; 9.5% Rate

LOL.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:38:29am

I have always been particularly appalled at wingnuts who attack the judiciary. That pesky constitution and all... It shows just how much the nutters actually love America.

sattv4u2 Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:38:55am

re: #7 Cato the Elder

Hey, who knew that nine out of ten LGF Pages are by Mandy Manners?

No,, but if you hum a few bars I may be able to sing along!!

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:39:22am

re: #7 Cato the Elder

Hey, who knew that nine out of ten LGF Pages are by Mandy Manners?

Glad to see you back. If you read my plea for moderates, you might find a bit of a battle cry. We need you here Cato.

jamesfirecat Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:42:16am

re: #6 JasonA

He went after the Democrats in that segment, too.

Yeah he felt it was a stupid idea for them to try and go for a 2/3rds majority instead of just voting down amendments /riders as they were raised.

Which is a pretty reasonable point...

palomino Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:42:50am

So when the judicial branch fulfills its role, as it did here, the talking point from opponents is that "we now live in a dictatorship?" All this talk of tyranny and dictators is really just shorthand for "I didn't get my way" or "My side lost the last election and I'm having a temper tantrum."

Shiplord Kirel Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:43:00am

re: #9 LudwigVanQuixote

I have always been particularly appalled at wingnuts who attack the judiciary. That pesky constitution and all... It shows just how much the nutters actually love America.

In the wingnut universe, literally all of our present-day problems stem from a single source: a judicial ban on prayer in schools. Never mind that there is no such ban, that is the perceived origin of all that wingnuts hate. The judiciary is therefore first cause of their problems, responsible for the downfall of the American paradise that existed before 1962.

webevintage Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:43:06am

re: #9 LudwigVanQuixote

I have always been particularly appalled at wingnuts who attack the judiciary. That pesky constitution and all... It shows just how much the nutters actually love America.

President Palin was not happy I see....

I think this is the best part of that activist Judge's ruling"
"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs' objective as 'the right to same-sex marriage' would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

Targetpractice Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:44:42am

re: #3 darthstar

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall...and those drapes aren't helping either"

Brilliant.

That had gotta stick in the pro-bigotry crowd's craw more than anything: Ronaldus Maximus, their patron saint, was the guy who originally nominated this judge, only for him to be seen as "too conservative," and then to be finally put on the bench by Ronaldus' successor, Bush the Elder.

palomino Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:45:53am

re: #6 JasonA

He went after the Democrats in that segment, too.

Stewart does that fairly often. He's a partisan, but certainly no reflexive mindless hack.

Shiplord Kirel Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:46:26am

re: #14 Shiplord Kirel

I could buy a Gulfstream if I had a dollar every time I've heard some yahoo say something like, "This all started when they took God out of the schools."

webevintage Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:46:44am

re: #6 JasonA

He went after the Democrats in that segment, too.

Yes he did....

(but Republicans are bastards if they refused to vote for the bill based on procedure OR because they could not protect muti-national companies from the closing of a tax loop-hole OR because they have a problem giving money to illegals who might have been at ground zero to help and then gotten sick because hey, if you are here illegally you get what you deserve.)

Four More Tears Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:46:50am

OT: Angle To Headline Event Promoted By Anti-Medicare, HIV-Denying Conspiracy Theorist Group

Sharron Angle sure has some interesting political associations. As Jon Ralston reports, Nevada's Republican nominee for Senate will be headlining a Tea Party event Saturday in San Diego promoted by a far-right doctors group -- a group that has itself promoted all sorts of wild conspiracy theories.
The event this Saturday, the National Doctors Tea Party, is promoted by a group called the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Among the AAPS's greatest hits: They have stated that the establishment of Medicare in 1965 was "evil" and "immoral"; They have denied the link between HIV and AIDS; they have dabbled in birtherism; they have argued that President Obama may have used "covert hypnosis" to rally his crowds; and have suggested that the Food and Drug Administration is unconstitutional.

It's like the Tea Parties are racing to the bottom of the crazy-pile.

Crimsonfisted Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:48:42am

re: #18 Shiplord Kirel

I could buy a Gulfstream if I had a dollar every time I've heard some yahoo say something like, "This all started when they took God out of the schools."

I disagree. This all started when women got the vote.

Spare O'Lake Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:51:35am

What's all this fuss about Preparation H?

jamesfirecat Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:53:51am

re: #20 JasonA

OT: Angle To Headline Event Promoted By Anti-Medicare, HIV-Denying Conspiracy Theorist Group

It's like the Tea Parties are racing to the bottom of the crazy-pile.

Anyone who denies the link between HIV and AIDS should be willing to submit their own blood stream for further testing to see after being injected with HIV, they come down with AIDS in a few years....

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:53:54am

re: #20 JasonA

OT: Angle To Headline Event Promoted By Anti-Medicare, HIV-Denying Conspiracy Theorist Group

It's like the Tea Parties are racing to the bottom of the crazy-pile.

Crazy is an unbounded domain with no bottom. However, I admit that they are reaching madness of Lovecraftian proportions.

In honor of this I propose a new tea bag crazy scale:

Level one: Hearing cultic chants in Innsmouth.
Level two: Saw a deep one
Level three: Kissed a Shoggoth
Level Four: Heard Cthulu shudder in his baleful slumber
Level Five: Had visions of Hastur and Nyarlohothep
Level six: On dream quest of Unknown Kadath
Level Seven: The King in Yellow brought him to the primordial chaos in the center of creation.

I believe these wingnuts are only snogging shoggoths.

Ericus58 Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:54:00am

re: #11 LudwigVanQuixote

Glad to see you back. If you read my plea for moderates, you might find a bit of a battle cry. We need you here Cato.

Which post was this in, LVQ?
I missed it and would like to read it.
Thanks.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:54:46am

re: #25 Ericus58

Which post was this in, LVQ?
I missed it and would like to read it.
Thanks.

it is one of my mini pages. Posted under general. and was a featured page also.

lawhawk Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:55:24am

re: #16 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

The way the GOP is moving these days, Reagan would be treated as a RINO, let alone Bush Sr.

fizzlogic Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:56:34am

re: #8 Walter L. Newton

Jobs Picture Worsens With 131,000 Losses; 9.5% Rate

LOL.

And the Republican/TeaParty plan is to cut spending. LOL

Cato the Elder Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:56:35am

re: #24 LudwigVanQuixote

Crazy is an unbounded domain with no bottom. However, I admit that they are reaching madness of Lovecraftian proportions.

In honor of this I propose a new tea bag crazy scale:

Level one: Hearing cultic chants in Innsmouth.
Level two: Saw a deep one
Level three: Kissed a Shoggoth
Level Four: Heard Cthulu shudder in his baleful slumber
Level Five: Had visions of Hastur and Nyarlohothep
Level six: On dream quest of Unknown Kadath
Level Seven: The King in Yellow brought him to the primordial chaos in the center of creation.

I believe these wingnuts are only snogging shoggoths.

I always picture the Realm of Crazy as more of a Mandelbrot set. The deeper you go, the more colorful things become.

What, me worry? Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:57:25am

re: #20 JasonA

OT: Angle To Headline Event Promoted By Anti-Medicare, HIV-Denying Conspiracy Theorist Group

It's like the Tea Parties are racing to the bottom of the crazy-pile.

I like the covert hypnosis part. You know, he's just a crazy witchdoctor with all that voodoo he practices which he learned in Kenya... or something. IOW, can't trust those crazy Black guys!

There's something deeply disturbing about these docs. Apparently only 4,000 of them belong to AAPS which I don't think is a terribly large number considering. Rand Paul is a member. I know, you're shocked.

It would be very interesting to see how many of them have had malpractice suits filed against them or had their membership revoked by the AMA.

What, me worry? Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:58:38am

re: #30 marjoriemoon

I like the covert hypnosis part. You know, he's just a crazy witchdoctor with all that voodoo he practices which he learned in Kenya... or something. IOW, can't trust those crazy Black guys!

There's something deeply disturbing about these docs. Apparently only 4,000 of them belong to AAPS which I don't think is a terribly large number considering. Rand Paul is a member. I know, you're shocked.

It would be very interesting to see how many of them have had malpractice suits filed against them or had their membership revoked by the AMA.

I'm sorry RON, not Rand.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:58:53am

re: #29 Cato the Elder

I always picture the Realm of Crazy as more of a Mandelbrot set. The deeper you go, the more colorful things become.

However, the Madlebrot set has an underlying order to it in the form of a simple iterated map and is itself a well defined strange attractor.

All I am saying is that there is too much simplicity and underlying order to it t make a good analogy for the wingnuts.

I think a better way to say it for them is that they have gone completely non-linear in an unbounded orbit.

Ericus58 Fri, Aug 6, 2010 10:59:15am

re: #26 LudwigVanQuixote

it is one of my mini pages. Posted under general. and was a featured page also.

Thank you - I'll look it up.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Aug 6, 2010 11:00:15am

re: #33 Ericus58

Thank you - I'll look it up.

Actually, thank you!

Four More Tears Fri, Aug 6, 2010 11:03:01am

re: #30 marjoriemoon

Their "journal" also has at least one article that I saw written by Andy Schlafly. Oy.

Walter L. Newton Fri, Aug 6, 2010 11:03:17am

re: #28 trendsurfer

And the Republican/TeaParty plan is to cut spending. LOL

So far, I haven't heard a comprehensive plan being put forth by the GOP... LOL. But what's currently in effect is not working. Someone better find something that works.

Ericus58 Fri, Aug 6, 2010 11:10:59am

re: #34 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually, thank you!

Indeed - I have to say Thank You for one of the more thoughtful threads/pages on LGF.

And not just the your post, but the comments I'm reading.
Kudos, LVQ. And those Lizards who commented.

I must tell you - and I've NEVER said this here before - If I could grant more than one upding - you would have gotten a ton.
Again, Thanks.

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Aug 6, 2010 11:12:02am

re: #37 Ericus58

Indeed - I have to say Thank You for one of the more thoughtful threads/pages on LGF.

And not just the your post, but the comments I'm reading.
Kudos, LVQ. And those Lizards who commented.

I must tell you - and I've NEVER said this here before - If I could grant more than one upding - you would have gotten a ton.
Again, Thanks.

Thank you so much.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Aug 6, 2010 11:34:39am

re: #16 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

That had gotta stick in the pro-bigotry crowd's craw more than anything: Ronaldus Maximus, their patron saint, was the guy who originally nominated this judge, only for him to be seen as "too conservative," and then to be finally put on the bench by Ronaldus' successor, Bush the Elder.

Doesn't matter. All that matters now is that Walker is gay, and he ruled against them. He's an 'activist judge', despite the fact that the proponents of Prop 8 brought nothing that would have made it realistic for him to uphold their legislation.

Obdicut Fri, Aug 6, 2010 11:44:15am

re: #39 SanFranciscoZionist

That judge went about ruling on this in a very, very smart way. He put an enormous burden on anyone furthering the case.

Big Steve Fri, Aug 6, 2010 11:58:41am

re: #13 palomino

So when the judicial branch fulfills its role, as it did here, the talking point from opponents is that "we now live in a dictatorship?" All this talk of tyranny and dictators is really just shorthand for "I didn't get my way" or "My side lost the last election and I'm having a temper tantrum."

This, my friend, is not limited to one side of the political spectrum. Remember that our dear President, at the last State of the Union Address, whined and predicted dire consequences from a Supreme Court decision that he didn't like.

Yashmak Fri, Aug 6, 2010 12:07:45pm

I have heard some interesting statements about the Prop 8 overturn here in Cali. . .statements that those making them admit are conflicted.

Same individual (a local radio DJ):
1) "The blatantly discriminatory Prop 8 should never have been allowed on the ballot in the first place."
2) "But, since it was, and since it was voted into law, it seems wrong that a judge can simply overturn the will of the people".

Fozzie Bear Fri, Aug 6, 2010 12:21:16pm

re: #20 JasonA

OT: Angle To Headline Event Promoted By Anti-Medicare, HIV-Denying Conspiracy Theorist Group

It's like the Tea Parties are racing to the bottom of the crazy-pile.

They ARE the bottom of the crazy pile.

PAUL_MACDONALD Fri, Aug 6, 2010 12:52:25pm

I have no problem at all bringing up the sexual orientation of the Judge, nor the dudes who nominated him. Oddly enough, in all the states that overturned SSM bans the Judges were placed on the bench by Republicans.

There's no doubt that before, during or after the vetting process on Walker that his sexual orientation wasn't known. The thing about it is that he was a good judge, period. There was a time when the US right wasn't insane.

theheat Fri, Aug 6, 2010 12:57:15pm

I think the judge made a terrific decision. I don't believe states should have the ability to deny individual's rights simply because in that voting demographic, enough people agree it's a good idea. This transcends GBLT, and applies to all people (religious and ethnic groups come to mind).

So long as they behave themselves and aren't hurting anyone or diminishing the rights of others, there's no justifiable reason to deny them the same freedoms and security afforded to any other American. If states feel they need to marginalize particular groups of people, let them choke on the Constitution.

Gus Fri, Aug 6, 2010 1:08:44pm

It's time this nation moved ahead on this right. We, of all nations, should be leading on this inalienable right and lead the world on gay rights which includes the freedom to marry -- in all states. Instead it will go to appeal and millions if not billions of dollars will be spent regarding a right that should have been in place for decades now.

Ojoe Fri, Aug 6, 2010 1:47:12pm

re: #46 Gus 802

IMHO the State should get out of the marriage business all together, and issue partnership documents; those desiring marriage can find a church to their liking. Otherwise we are heading down the road to religious violence in this country. There are those who feel very strongly on the issue and they feel that the state in their name is giving an assent to something that they cannot themselves give an assent to. If you push them too far, well, I don't think we should. This is a classic separation of Church and State issue and we should continue with the wisdom of the founders of this country and make the separation here in this area, where there has been an overlooked connection for so long.

really grumpy big dog johnson Fri, Aug 6, 2010 3:01:49pm

I expect that nasty replies will follow...

The term marriage has always applied to the partnership union of a man and a woman. Only in recent years have activist entry modifications appeared in dictionaries removing the mention of gender in these unions, but clearly this word marriage has always been reserved for the spiritual union of man and woman.

Let's keep it so. I was verbally assaulted by a person today for suggesting that no one's rights had been abridged by California's adoption of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex "marriage". Apparently I cannot read between the lines of the intent of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I am utterly opposed to any denial of rights to those who choose civil union with another person of the same gender, but I see no denial in reserving the word marriage and its forms for the union of simply one man and one woman.

Those who believe otherwise wish to extend the boundaries of language to suit conditions for which the word is inappropriate. If same-sex civil unions confer the same societal privileges as received by those who marry, then there can be no discrimination simply because of a word label. This particular label is of such significance to those to whom it applies or may apply, that only discord and significant division of our society must necessarily follow what those who believe in "marriage" would consider unacceptable debasement of the word.

This urgent forcing of the adoption of an unnatural definition to the meaning of that word makes me distrust the motives of those who would do so. It would not be the first time that society has been led astray in the name of "inalienable rights".

Please attack me at your convenience.

wrenchwench Fri, Aug 6, 2010 3:24:27pm

re: #48 really grumpy big dog johnson

And the word "gay" used to mean "happy, cheerful".

OMG! Teh wurds iz being stolenz!

Seriously, if the whole concept didn't bother you, why would the use of the same word for the same contract and ceremony bother you, just because there are two of one sex instead of one of each? You have decided that the definition must be narrow. I think everybody has the same right to the word, just as they have the same right to the contract and the ceremony.

I hope that didn't seem like an attack.

Ojoe Fri, Aug 6, 2010 3:28:19pm

re: #48 really grumpy big dog johnson

A gay man may quite legally marry a gay woman, there you have their rights, from that viewpoint anyway.

IMHO it is a violation of separation of Church and State for the state to be issuing marriage licenses anyway; that is what is unconstitutional.

People can find whatever church they want, & call themselves married before God, but leave the State out of it.

This court decision is no progress for anybody; it is another step down an unconstitutional path.

The bad vibes that this thing is causing should be a clue that the State should get out of it.

Ojoe Fri, Aug 6, 2010 3:29:23pm

re: #49 wrenchwench

Anyone can use the word; it is just that some do not want the sate using it for them. We are all stuck with the State, there are multiple religions.

really grumpy big dog Johnson Fri, Aug 6, 2010 3:47:10pm

re: #49 wrenchwench

And the word "gay" used to mean "happy, cheerful".

OMG! Teh wurds iz being stolenz!

Seriously, if the whole concept didn't bother you, why would the use of the same word for the same contract and ceremony bother you, just because there are two of one sex instead of one of each? You have decided that the definition must be narrow. I think everybody has the same right to the word, just as they have the same right to the contract and the ceremony.

I hope that didn't seem like an attack.

I've already said what I've said. I see no need to amplify them.

really grumpy big dog Johnson Fri, Aug 6, 2010 4:02:12pm

re: #50 Ojoe

A gay man may quite legally marry a gay woman, there you have their rights, from that viewpoint anyway.

IMHO it is a violation of separation of Church and State for the state to be issuing marriage licenses anyway; that is what is unconstitutional.

People can find whatever church they want, & call themselves married before God, but leave the State out of it.

This court decision is no progress for anybody; it is another step down an unconstitutional path.

The bad vibes that this thing is causing should be a clue that the State should get out of it.

Ironically, if the state removed itself from the issuing of marriage certificates, it would be far easier for a same-sex couple to find a church in which to be married than it would be for opposite-sex atheists to do the same. Presumably the atheists would be "marrying" in order to receive benefits unavailable to them as single people, or one would have to question the validity of their atheism...

Not that it matters. And wouldn't it abridge their rights to be forced to receive vows in a place of worship to deity? I could see other problems, but I'm sure others could see them as well. Some might seem far-fetched, but others I'm not so sure about. What about the rights of three women to marry one man (or woman)? How could you refuse them at all? How could you refuse any condition that people want to define as marriage?

Not to mention the need to authenticate marriages and the headaches that would cause. Of course if there were not benefits accrued to domestic partnerships of any kind, then we wouldn't have this issue, would we?

I think this issue is a lot more comprehensive than most people suspect, and I sincerely worry about the possible outcomes.

Ojoe Fri, Aug 6, 2010 4:20:00pm

re: #53 really grumpy big dog Johnson

I think this issue is a lot more comprehensive than most people suspect, and I sincerely worry about the possible outcomes.

I think it could lead to small scale armed religious revolts right here in the USA.

We have to back off & get the State out of the marriage business.

* * *

& atheists could have their own "Hall of Partnership" in which to get hitched.

& whatever way a couple goes, it can have a 2 person partner certificate from the State, which would confer equal benefits on all couples.

Okami Fri, Aug 6, 2010 4:39:46pm

re: #48 really grumpy big dog johnson

The problem with the "Don't change the definition" arguement is that the defintion was irreversibly changed when the government adopted it as policy. From that point on, marriage was a legal term with a legal definition completely seperate from anything Webster had to say. You can't accuse gay people of "forcing" an "unnatural definition", just because they're talking about a statute that happens to share the same name as your religious institution. The rights issued by the state are called "marriage", so obviously they're goin go ask for marriage rights.

You could petition the government to change the name of the statute, but everyone, gay or straight, will be covered under the same statute. Gay people will not have civil unions while straight people have marriages. No judge is going to accept the idea of "seperate but equal" laws when the only basis is that some people prefer they not use a word.

Ojoe Fri, Aug 6, 2010 4:55:02pm

re: #55 Okami

The rights issued by the state are called "marriage"

And as marriage has been long recognized as a sacrament,
having the State issue it violates separation of Church and State from the git-go.

Ojoe Fri, Aug 6, 2010 4:59:49pm

re: #55 Okami

Gay people will not have civil unions while straight people have marriages.

From the state, all will have civil unions.

Thus: equality.

If a couple wants Marriage as well, they would be free to go to a Church.

Thus: freedom.

You can find many kinds of Churches, one will accommodate. I went to a ceremony where to old gay gals got hitched at a Synagogue.

With this system, we can cut out the rancor.

Kruk Fri, Aug 6, 2010 5:14:38pm

re: #40 Obdicut

That judge went about ruling on this in a very, very smart way. He put an enormous burden on anyone furthering the case.

Very good article here on just how smartly Judge Walker has crafted this ruling:

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]

And on the "Not all Republicans are SoCon Wingnuts" front, California's Governor files motion to resume gay marriages:

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]

And on the "WTF?" front, Ann Coulter will headline "Homocon".

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]

PAUL_MACDONALD Fri, Aug 6, 2010 6:52:02pm

re: #48 really grumpy big dog johnson

I thought much like you a few years ago. The essence of your argument is "Separate but Equal". That doesn't work down there, at least not anymore.

The "allowing" of gay marriage will neither add or subtract from the validity of straight marriage. Somehow, Canada survived homosexuals getting married and calling it marriage.

'I'm for equal protection... BUT' is pretty darned weaselly

Ojoe Fri, Aug 6, 2010 7:21:56pm

re: #59 PAUL_MACDONALD

The "allowing" of gay marriage will neither add or subtract from the validity of straight marriage.

The problem is, that in many people's minds it does; and as citizens, these people feel that they are compelled to approve something that is anathema to them, because the State is doing it, and they are citizens of the State.

You are stuck with the State.

There can be multiple churches.

This is a contentious thing, and the State should stay out of it, and not issue "Marriage" licenses. It violates the separation of Church and State. You can see that by the rancor it is provoking.

IMHO if the State doesn't get out of the Marriage game, there will be bad bad consequences.

PAUL_MACDONALD Fri, Aug 6, 2010 7:54:36pm

re: #60 Ojoe

The problem is, that in many people's minds it does; and as citizens, these people feel that they are compelled to approve something that is anathema to them, because the State is doing it, and they are citizens of the State.

Like interracial marriage before that, and child labour laws before that, and slavery before that. That the state doesn't support bigotry and unequal protection is something they have to deal with.

You are stuck with the State.

There can be multiple churches.

None of them should have say in what the state does, though. Would you be mad if churches were marrying gays and lesbians? The backdoor here is that you expect that churches will not offer services to same sex couples. I suspect that this is incorrect.

This is a contentious thing, and the State should stay out of it, and not issue "Marriage" licenses. It violates the separation of Church and State. You can see that by the rancor it is provoking.

This is a contradictory statement. Marriage bestows all kinds of rights and protections. Perhaps the church should get out of the marriage game. Why you would want people who have issues with science and logic telling society at large who should and shouldn't be married? This borders on insane.

IMHO if the State doesn't get out of the Marriage game, there will be bad bad consequences.

Please, expand upon this. What kind of consequences? A same sex partner being allowed death benefits? DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER? Canada has had gay marriage for about a decade. So far, no one has married their cat, their sibling or a sofa. My marriage to my wife has not been diminished. As far as I can tell, neither one of my daughters has caught a case of the gay.

There is no empirical data to support your thesis. All evidence points to the exact opposite.

really grumpy big dog johnson Fri, Aug 6, 2010 8:13:57pm

re: #59 PAUL_MACDONALD

I thought much like you a few years ago. The essence of your argument is "Separate but Equal". That doesn't work down there, at least not anymore.

The "allowing" of gay marriage will neither add or subtract from the validity of straight marriage. Somehow, Canada survived homosexuals getting married and calling it marriage.

'I'm for equal protection... BUT' is pretty darned weaselly

"Weaselly"? I'm not advocating segregation, so your comment is just plain weird. There is absolutely zero equivalence between having civil unions and marriages (both with equal force under the law) and segregation under the so-called "separate but equal" doctrines of that time.

What is curious to me is how utterly essential it is to those who advocate for same-sex marriage that it be "marriage" instead of a legal union under a different name. There is no inequality or discrimination in that, only if a society allows such discrimination to be.

I was scourged by someone today that told me to brush up on the Fourteenth Amendment and I'd know why same-sex marriage is the only way to avoid discrimination. I still haven't figured out any way that the amendment has any relevance at all to this issue. There is a serious disconnect with reality among those who insist that everyone whose opinion is not in concordance with those who believe that all unions must equally be marriages, as compared to those who do not share those beliefs. Just because you hold an unassailable belief in your correctness does not in fact mean that you are therefore necessarily correct.

And this is still a bigger issue than the advocates are making it out to be. And that concerns me greatly, because if supporters of sam-sex marriage insist that any other solution is unconstitutionally discriminatory, then what stops any other configuration of unified lifestyles from using exactly the same argument, and not getting the same result?

Besides, I'm one of those weirdos who thinks that same-sex marriage has zero to do with Constitutional guarantees. Zilch.

Ojoe Fri, Aug 6, 2010 8:29:11pm

re: #61 PAUL_MACDONALD

The backdoor here is that you expect that churches will not offer services to same sex couples. I suspect that this is incorrect.

Oh no, I know that some churches would. I am fine with that. My point is that

as citizens, these people feel that they are compelled to approve something that is anathema to them, because the State is doing it, and they are citizens of the State.

Leave them out! This whole controversy reminds me of for instance England during the time of Henry the Eighth & his successors & the terrible religious arguments then. I realize this is a faint echo compared to that, but the elements are here now, namely the pushing around of people's deeply held beliefs by actions of the state. It is no good, and I think the correct way to fix it is to get the state out of "Marriage" altogether.

Please, expand upon this. What kind of consequences?

None of what you mention. But I get a feeling that fringe religious types could perhaps resort to some violence over this.

Ojoe Fri, Aug 6, 2010 8:35:03pm

re: #61 PAUL_MACDONALD

Why you would want people who have issues with science and logic telling society at large who should and shouldn't be married? This borders on insane.

I don't think the churches should tell society who and who should not be married they can tell their own members only, and of course those members are free to leave their church and find another more to their liking. And if the State did not issue "marriage" licenses, why that would undercut the fringe religious types who do want to dictate to the state.

Also, not every church has issues with science and logic.

Ojoe Fri, Aug 6, 2010 8:48:21pm

Conking out; I will check back here tomorrow. G'night.

PAUL_MACDONALD Sat, Aug 7, 2010 7:11:14am

It's the state's job to provide equal protection under the law.

re: #62 really grumpy big dog johnson

If they both have equal force under the law, then why can't gay people call it marriage? So, they are separate terms, but they are equal. Separate but equal. Which makes them not equal. Which makes one distinct group of citizens second class.

That water fountain is just as good. What's wrong with the back of the bus? You'll get there just fine. No, you can't marry that person because their pigmentation is different, but there are plenty of similarly pigmented people that you can marry. See! Everyone is equal.

It was always a bad argument that barely hid the racism and bigotry when it was in full force during a time when most people were openly bigoted. Flawed logic to cover personal insecurities doesn't magically become good logic.

re: #63 Ojoe

My response is that the state ALWAYS does something that annoys the populace. That so many are up in arms about giving homosexuals equal protection under the law that costs those people precisely nothing speaks volumes about what the real agenda is.

As for the underlying "look out for the religious crazies" argument. Really? That doesn't sound like a valid argument to me. Maybe because allowing fringe dipshits to control your national agenda never seems to turn out well. Will they be burning crosses? Will they be blowing up churches and clinics? Fringe types resorting to violence has never been a good argument to withhold basic human rights.

So, what are these actual consequences. Quite a few countries have gay marriage. So, there should be some empirical data regarding the overall negative effect it has had.

re: #64 Ojoe

So, standards are right out, then? The state sanctions marriage for certain legal benefits and protections. The church service is, at this point, symbolic. For your marriage to have any legal weight, the state allows it. Protects against stuff like bigamy and whatnot.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Jon Stewart on Prop 8

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud