Breaking: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage; Update: Opinion-skimming analysis added!
posted at 1:11 pm on May 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
An election-year bombshell, just across the wires. Rove, you magnificent bastard. Stand by for updates.
Update: Here’s the opinion. How does 172 pages sound?
Update: The AP story is thin on specifics since it’ll take awhile to digest the holding. Read this useful bullet-point background from the Journal to get up to speed on the legal posture. Note that six of the seven justices on the court are Republicans. Will the ruling stick?
“Pro-family” organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures for an initiative that would amend the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. If at least 694,354 signatures are found to be valid, the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.
Proposition 22, the California ballot initiative that defined marriage in the state as between one man and one woman (even if the marriage was entered into in another state that allows same-sex marriage), passed in 2000 by a margin of 1.7 million votes.
Update: Sounds like a major win:
Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.
In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.
The ruling set off a celebration at San Francisco City Hall.
Update: A quick skim reveals that the opinion’s fairly straightforward. They start out by noting that California’s different from other states that have dealt with this insofar as it already has a robust domestic partnership law. All this is about, really, is whether gays should be allowed to “marry” the way straights do or whether they’re stuck with those partnership agreements that leave them married in effect but not in name. Conservatives like partnership schemes and/or civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage, but I’ve always thought that argument’s self-defeating since it leaves you with no substantive reason for drawing any distinction in the first place. Yes, (some) conservatives seem to be saying, gays can go ahead and have civil unions that grant them all the benefits married couples have — but for god’s sake, don’t let them call themselves “married.” To which a court can only reply, “Why not?” The right’s strategy, in other words, has been to concede 99 yards and then stand on the one-yard line and say “no further,” but that’s not how discrimination jurisprudence works. If you’re going to discriminate you need a good reason, and depending upon whom you’re discriminating against, you may need a very, very good reason.
That’s actually the key ruling here: The court holds on page 95 that because sexual orientation is (1) immutable, (2) unrelated to one’s ability to function in society, and (3) a target of prejudice, it should be treated as a “suspect classification” for purposes of the state constitution’s equal protection clause. Once it’s deemed a suspect classification then the state needs a very compelling reason to justify discriminating on the basis of it — and since, as I say, it’s already conceded those 99 yards, there’s no such reason to be had. (If you want to bore yourself with the vagaries of equal protection jurisprudence, read this old post about New Jersey’s gay marriage ruling.) All they’re doing is denying gays the label of marriage to preserve a sense of stigma, which is almost a paradigm case of what equal protection is meant to prevent. I have no problem with the ruling as long as other states aren’t compelled to recognize Cali marriages per full faith and credit, which, needless to say, is the battleground on which this decision’s going to be fought in the presidential race. Taking the federalist approach and letting each state decide for itself is an easy call for Maverick; what about the Prince of Peace?
Exit question: Remember this golden oldie from the 2006 midterms?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 »
Ridiculous to call a relationship between two gays a marriage. I hope the Constitutional Ban is enacted in November.
Recovering_Democrat on May 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Seems odd. How do you know? Is the basis for your assertion in this matter consistent with the knowledge you collect for assertions in general?
dedalus on May 16, 2008 at 3:19 PM
I disagree that queers are socially accepted in this country. Socially tolerated at the point of a gun (enforcement), maybe.
platypus on May 16, 2008 at 3:45 PM
In nearly all Fortune 500 companies they are.
dedalus on May 16, 2008 at 3:49 PM
I KNOW you wish more straight people had AIDS so that this wouldn’t be factually true. You’re so philanthropic and empathetic like that.
ThackerAgency
Oh NO! Liberal Propaganda!
2/3rds of new AIDS infections are between straight folks.
Krydor on May 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Okay, let’s get in on…. oh, yeah..
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Very well said. It isn’t often that people get to see exactly where the line is, and what will, and will not be accepted. For the present, in the sphere of so-called gay rights, the line is drawn at gay marriage. All ought to recognize that, if not accept it.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Hey Doc. Mind giving me your take on polygamy? It occurred to me that I don’t seem to have as much moral/ethical objection to it as I do to gay marriage. Do you know why it is taboo in modern western society? Offhand, without giving it a lot of thought, I don’t see how it is as destructive to society as gay marriage.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM
You cannot legislate acceptance, thats what Saturday morning cartoons are for.
DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Sure you can. Once something becomes law, it becomes part of the social constuct of the culture. It becomes accepted.
Not everyone has to accept it, but everyone has to abide by the new law. Over time it is accepted.
Skidd on May 16, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Why don’t you get yourself a real Bible Victor? That passage you used up top is from the New International Perversion, uh, I mean Version. The NIV is one of the most corrupt Bible translations ever made. It REMOVES 65,625 words! That equals removing Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Collossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Obadiah, Jonah, Haggai, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John, Jude and more!!
Matthew 25:13 (Jesus talks about His return)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
King James
Ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
New International
You do not know the day or the hour.
Matthew 18:11
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
King James
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
New International
OMITTED.
Acts 8:37
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
King James
If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
New International
OMITTED.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 5:46 PM
In effect you satisfy some of the polygamous need via the social acceptance of divorce. Many men abandon a wife for a second wife and sometimes a third or fourth. Most of the time the first wife is dumped as she approaches infertility and (guess what) the second wife happens to be younger.
That is OK. You can do it and run a big company or run for President. Would it suddenly not be OK if the man maintained a contractual commitment to the first wife, demoting her to say an “emeritus” position?
dedalus on May 16, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Talk about silly .. lol .. that is such poor advice. God never said He would preserve the English language, but He did say He would preserve His Word. Everyone wants to bring the Bible down to their level. How about bring our intelect up to the level of the Bible? There are about 20 archaic words in the KJV. These are no longer used in modern English. Learn those 20 words and you’ll be fine.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Might be OK, I guess. Goes for the women as well I suppose. I’m not as young as I used to be:)
More seriously, as we know, polygamous societies exist now, and have forever. Obviously, the practice does not destroy the family. I still wonder why it was outlawed. Guess I’ll have to do some research.
If it’s a good idea, without reasonable exceptions, I suppose this ruling will help re-vive it.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 5:52 PM
CONVERT´ED, pp. Turned or changed from one substance or state to another; turned from one religion or sect to another; changed from a state of sin to a state of holiness; applied to a particular use; appropriated.
Noah Webster’s first edition of An American dictionary of the English language. Reprint of the 1828 ed.
Skidd on May 16, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Aren’t 80% of no fault divorces filed by women? Seems like I read that statistic somewhere. Also, I think Allah linked to an article that had something to do with his beta male fascination. It theorized that with the shortage of Alpha males, and the pickiness of females. Polygamy was the perfect evolutionary vehicle to satisfy both males and females, or at least the alpha males, and females, and isn’t that who really counts.
DFCtomm on May 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM
The way you find out what a word meant from King James 1611 Victor, is to use a Dictionary printed close to that time. Find yourself a King James Bible Dictionary, I use a Webster’s 1828 Dictionary to find out the definition of certain KJV Words. Ha! I can’t believe you actually said a word translated in 1611 does not mean anything to a modern Christian… lol … you’re literally saying God’s Word must conform to man’s word. That’s heresy. And you REally expect people to take your advice on Biblical matters? You’re the last person anyone should listen to with tips like that.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Yep. Pretty stupid, no? Of course you left out some very important facts: 1. The UK has no written Constitution, let alone anything as powerful in their national psyche as the First Amendment (I think Canada is the same but could be wrong); 2. Those priests you mention in Sweden are part of a national church, which only goes to show you that for all the complaints of the Religious Right “separation of Church and State” benefits both sides at times.
Any other apples and oranges you’d like to compare?
JohnAGJ on May 16, 2008 at 6:21 PM
so? in this country our laws and constitution are whatever some black-robed jack-booted judge says they are.
the constitution is meaningless.
right4life on May 16, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Interesing how you only bolded sexual orientation on this list of protected classes. Surely you and ACU are not guilty of rank hypocrisy and are doing everything possible to overturn protections in cases of race, color, religion, national origin, gender and disability? Remember now, we can’t “criminalize thoughts”, or perhaps you’re just joshing and this only a handy slogan when it comes to the queers?
JohnAGJ on May 16, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Oh it feels like that at times in this post-Kelso era, but when it comes to the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment I do believe you’d find a backlash from both ends of the spectrum if the need arose. Come to think of it, one did find a mini-backlash and a united front when it came to Kelso and the 4th Amendment protections SCOTUS ignored.
JohnAGJ on May 16, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Yes, indeed Curtis. Nicely explained. Thank you. Here it is again; Psalm 19:7 tells us, “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul.” It’s pretty simple. Easy to understand. People like Victor are dangerous in that they are trying to change God’s Word into saying something it doesn’t mean. Maybe that’s because he knows it is that it is not possible to convince a person that he/she is sinning without reference to the law of God. Y’know if Satan were going to try to corrupt God’s Word, it would make sense he would use people like Victor to confuse Christians so they won’t find out God’s law is the most effective tool we can use to identify sin and point souls to the Savior. You’ve been had Victor. Boy, has the Devil tricked you on this one.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 6:33 PM
but we have no 4th amendment protection. outrage, but no action, congress can take authority from the courts, but they refuse to do so.
right4life on May 16, 2008 at 6:35 PM
As California accepts this, so will the rest of the nation. It’s only a matter of time. They know what they’re doing, they just opened the door now. Watch… give it a little more time soon men will be marrying men and women, women, it’s going to happen. God have mercy on us.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 6:35 PM
No, its not. Not even close. Jack-boots are trying, but they have a looong way to go.
In America, we actually DEBATE things, which most countries in the world don’t allow their citizens or politicians to do. Don’t have that attitude, or in short order, the constitution WILL be meaningless.
Not because of jack-boots, but because of a do-nothing constituency.
Skidd on May 16, 2008 at 6:35 PM
thats what ‘hate crimes’ is all about.
right4life on May 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM
National amendments do not happen overnight. There was also more than just outrage as state amendments as well as national legislation were passed - with more coming.
JohnAGJ on May 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM
and of course only white christians can perpetrate hate crimes.
some pigs are more equal than others…
right4life on May 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM
it’ll be declared ‘unconstitutional’ by a court, so its meaningless.
right4life on May 16, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Which long before sexual orientation was included in some jurisdictions covered such things as race, color, religion, etc. Again I ask: where is the Religious Right in throwing out ALL protected classes? No, we only see them when it comes to queers which makes it very easy to see that this expressed fear about “thought crimes” is a flat-out lie.
JohnAGJ on May 16, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Rock and Roll, Skidd.
“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” 2 Corinthians 5:17
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Hello, apacalyps!
Skidd on May 16, 2008 at 6:41 PM
and I ask you, after 40 years of quota, affirmative action do we need protected classes?
do you live in the same world? you haven’t seen whats happened in Canada, and Europe??? to christians who say homosexuality is a sin?
ELMIRA, NY, July 10, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Police arrested seven Christians who were praying prostrate and holding Bibles in a public park where a gay festival was just beginning, WorldNetDaily (WND) reports.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07071001.html
and this:
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A Dutch political cartoonist was arrested this week on suspicion of insulting people because of their race or religion through his work, authorities said Friday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665094/
some pigs are more equal than others…Orwell would understand our world very well.
right4life on May 16, 2008 at 6:46 PM
The most serious destructive aspect of polygamy is that it limits the pool of available mates for men of lower social status and wealth. The most powerful and wealthy men get all the women, and the men at the lower end of the power spectrum become bitter, frustrated, and prone to adopting self-destructive ideologies that give them a sense of purpose. In the modern era, those ideologies tend to come with suicide vests.
Polygamy doesn’t work well with the Western tradition of families building into communities, and eventually democratic governments. A polygamous society is degrading to its women and young men, who become “worth” only a fraction of what wealthy and powerful men are worth. Experience suggests that the health of a civilization can be judged by how well it treats its women. That’s one of the reasons “alternative marriages” of all sorts seem dangerous to me. Marriage is a powerful trust that men confer to women, and women are always the ones who suffer most when marriage is diluted or devalued.
Doctor Zero on May 16, 2008 at 6:47 PM
another good one:
South Wales police admitted evangelical Christian Stephen Green was then charged purely because his pamphlets contained anti-gay quotations from the Bible.
Mr Green faces a court appearance today charged with using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour’ after his attempt to distribute the leaflets at the weekend ‘Mardi Gras’ event in Cardiff
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23365857-details/Christian+faces+court+over+‘offensive’+gay+festival+leaflets/article.do
can’t offend the gays now can we? oh no that a HATE CRIME and those who do will soon have to go to a soviet-style mental instituion to ‘get their mind right’ watch for it….
right4life on May 16, 2008 at 6:49 PM
Hey buddy, good to see you. Always enjoy your comments. Someone who thinks logically like you provides a nice contrast to the real world.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Not the same critter, or are you claiming that there are religious quotas government and businesses must fill? No, racial and gender quotas, which IMO are clearly unconstitutional (go Ward Connerly!), came about later. Also, nice dodge but you still failed to answer my question: where is the Religious Right in throwing out ALL protected classes?
See previous posting.
JohnAGJ on May 16, 2008 at 6:50 PM
you miss the point entirely. let me guess, you’re a good lib!!
oh yeah you say it doesn’t happen so it doesn’t…sure!
oh yeah you say its not happen
right4life on May 16, 2008 at 6:54 PM
nice dodge, why don’t you look up it yourself?
right4life on May 16, 2008 at 6:54 PM
I assure you that your comment wasn’t so profound that it escaped me understanding. You, however, appear to be confused and have conflated 2 separate issues - 1 of which we apparently agree upon.
It doesn’t help when you make such erroneous claims like this.
JohnAGJ on May 16, 2008 at 6:56 PM
Worked for prohibition. What could possibly go wrong?
Jaibones on May 16, 2008 at 6:57 PM
As I suspected: you refuse to answer because you are aware of the hypocrisy and your complaints have nothing to do with principle on due process but instead is all about your antipathy for queers.
JohnAGJ on May 16, 2008 at 6:58 PM
they’re the same thing, sorry.
I’ve proven my claim, all you have done is claim it doesn’t happen. I’ve just proven it does. you have nothing to back you, neither facts, nor logic.
right4life on May 16, 2008 at 6:58 PM
I agree phil, like you say there has never been a recognition of same-sex unions as a marriage in any major civilization in the history of the world. But, now homosexuals are making huge advances in the world and as you watch this, you are actually watching Satan make advances in the world! American lawmakers are destroying this nation instead of protecting it.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 6:59 PM
“gay” people didn’t consciously choose their sexual attraction? JiangxiDad on May 15, 2008
Look, so what? Maybe they were born gay and maybe not! I don’t care! Maybe child predators were born that way too! Maybe arsonists were born that way! Maybe bank robbers were born to rob banks! Does that make it OK?? NO!!
You know what? The Bible says we were all born into sin! So OK,, it’s alright that gays were born gay! There’s still an answer to the problem! It’s called JESUS CHRIST AND THE CROSS!
It’s called repenting and turning back to God!!
Jesus said we can be born again! In John 3:1-7 He tells Nicodemus “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
So fine, we were all born screwed up! Some more than others!
Being born screwed up does not automatically give them them right to destroy marriage for everyone else!
You want to know something else! I used to not care at all that much about gays! But I am getting sick of these people getting in our faces at school, at work and at our church! I am getting sick and tired of listening to them scream we have to love and embrace all their sexual perversions or we are “intolerant!”
Homosexuality is the perversion! It will always be a perversion! It will never not be a perversion!
Let all the so called experts, movie stars and politicians of the world come out together hand in hand and declare with one voice that homosexuality is normal and God will not be impressed! Nor will I!
JellyToast on May 16, 2008 at 6:59 PM
thanks.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 7:05 PM
No they’re not. The fact that you erroneously believe they renders this discussion pointless.
Again you make untrue statements. Whatever happened to not bearing false witness, eh?
JohnAGJ on May 16, 2008 at 7:08 PM
This example doesn’t mute the point I made because there are exceptions for most things, right? :)
Skidd on May 16, 2008 at 7:10 PM
For the record, I didn’t say I thought homosexuality was genetic, or that people were born that way. I said I didn’t think anyone consciously chooses his sexual orientation.
JiangxiDad on May 16, 2008 at 7:12 PM
The next shoe to drop will be the Defense of Marriage Act which will be found unconstitutional sometime during Imam Obama’s first term. Then, perhaps finally, the cultists may realize that all they have accomplished is to tarnish the conservative movement with their foolish antics. However, if the silliness still continues with the continued effort to transform the Republican Party into a fundamentalist Christian Party then count on at least 25 years of Dhimmicrat domination as the current illegals become citizens, voting D of course.
Much further down the road today’s cultists may get their wish concerning gay marriage when the U.S. joins the global caliphate as a result decades of continuous capitulation to foreign and domestic enemies.
Annar on May 16, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Are you insinuating homosexuality is genetic?
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Thank goodness this decision hasn’t been controversial. Yessir, it’s fitting nicely right down people’s throats, you betcha.
Django on May 16, 2008 at 7:41 PM
its called projection…look it up.
right4life on May 16, 2008 at 7:46 PM
I agree phil, like you say there has never been a recognition of same-sex unions as a marriage in any major civilization in the history of the world.
apacalyps
And so what? The whole notion of women as “not property” is a relatively new thing and pretty much a western civilization thing even now. The notion of not having slaves is also a new one, historically speaking. Heck, even the ideal of racial equality is new.
The cool thing about various fundamental human rights movements is that those who objected most vociferously to the change generally hid behind scripture to justify their bigotry.
Krydor on May 16, 2008 at 7:46 PM
no doubt.
However, if the silliness still continues with the continued effort to transform the Republican Party into a fundamentalist Christian Party then count on at least 25 years of Dhimmicrat domination as the current illegals become citizens, voting D of course
right4life on May 16, 2008 at 7:47 PM
are you a liar, or just a fool? ever hear of someone named WILBERFORCE???
name an atheist abolitionist group…good luck. and of course that racist darwin, and his racist theory of evolution have institutionalized ’scientific’ racism
right4life on May 16, 2008 at 7:49 PM
I think sometimes there is a tendency, among people (mainly liberals), to downplay the dangers of a promiscous lifestyle, particularly gay promiscuity, that spreads disease. Promiscuous behavior in the gay community was largely responsible for the spread of HIV in the 80’s and 90’s. Now this same behavior seems to be spreading a killer form of Staph. This one seems more likely to get into the hetero community, though, and will then be spread by the rampant promiscuity there.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Much agreed
dedalus on May 16, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Yet another self-professed Christian who bears false witness…
JohnAGJ on May 16, 2008 at 8:02 PM
from your own article:
In the UCSF study, researchers found that men in a clinic for HIV-positive patients who had a history of having sex with men were 13 times more likely than other HIV-positive patients to get a particular form of community-associated staph infection called MRSA USA300…..
What is new is the rapid rate the bacteria spread among this particular population of gay men, studied between 2004-2006. Why these men are more vulnerable than the heterosexuals studied is still a question.
so do you read what you post?
right4life on May 16, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Yep. Did you actually understand what you read or is it normal practice to twist what is written? Read the snippet you posted from the article again and the false claim that apacalyps made. They are not saying the same thing at all by a long shot.
JohnAGJ on May 16, 2008 at 8:11 PM
How is apacalyps’ statement a form of lying??
Skidd on May 16, 2008 at 8:18 PM
This has nothing to do with fundamental human rights movements. Decent people love change, if that change is for the better. The change you’re talking about is for everyone else to submit to your sick God forsaken thoughts. That’s your idea of change.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 8:45 PM
I don’t appreciate being called stupid. You can disagree me without being derogatory.
Yes and have ever asked yourself why the UK have no written Constitution? Its because for many, many centuries their unwritten Constitution was so ingrained in their psyche, understood by everyone, that they felt they didn’t need to write it down.
The Founding Fathers of America prioritised the separation of Church and State to prevent an official Church being established. They wrote nothing however about the Christian culture of America because it was so ingrained in the American psyche of the 18th century. Now the separation of Church and State is used by secularists to try to purge Christianity from American life.
That has nothing to do with it. The law applies not only to Lutherans (Sweden’s national Church) but also Calvinists, Catholics and Pentecostalists.
No but I’ll just say that you remind me of Neville Chamberlain in one respect - you’re waving a piece of paper around (in this case the US Constitution) in the belief that it renders you invulnerable to attack.
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Gay John, I’m not bearing false witness. Sorry if you feel that way. I said promiscuous behavior in the gay community was largely responsible for the spread of HIV in the 80’s and 90’s, and now this same behavior seems to be spreading a killer form of Staph. I said this one seems more likely to get into the hetero community, and will then be spread by the rampant promiscuity there. Here’s the study itself and a quote:
“Multidrug-resistant USA300 is the first widely disseminated community-associated multidrug-resistant MRSA clone. Data from this study suggest that multidrug-resistant USA300 has spread rapidly among men who have sex with men in San Francisco and Boston, and that having male–male sex seems to be a risk factor for multidrug-resistant USA300 infection independent of HIV infection. Spread of the USA300 clone among men who have sex with men is associated with high-risk behaviors, including use of methamphetamine and other illicit drugs, sex with multiple partners, participation in a group sex party, use of the internet for sexual contacts, skin-abrading sex, and history of sexually transmitted infections.” — That’s a direct quote…
And John, I also said I think sometimes there is a tendency, among people to downplay the dangers of a promiscous lifestyle, particularly gay promiscuity, that spreads disease, and you kinda prove my point because instead of admitting that promiscuous behavior in the gay community was largely responsible for the spread of HIV in the 80’s and 90’s, and instead of admitting there is a dangerous new staph bacteria in the homosexual community, you instead try to downplay it and shift the focus on me. Men who have sex with men are contributing to the spread of multidrug-resistant bacteria into the hetero community whether you admit it or not.
Can I ask you your feelings on the homosexual rights activists who tried to get a ban overturned on gay and bisexual men donating blood in the UK because they thought it is “offensive”? How do you feel about that?
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 10:32 PM
I’m not trying to isolate homsexuality as this particular wicked sin, and then use it as an excuse to be condescending toward another person, treating someone who’s gay almost as though they’re some sort of leper. We must remember ALL sexual sin is offensive to God. Homosexual or heterosexual sin, whether it is adultery, sexual promiscuaty, fornication, sex outside of marriage, or even lust, which Jesus said is “adultery of the heart” (Matthew 5:2) and is sinful in God’s sight.
apacalyps on May 16, 2008 at 10:35 PM
name an atheist abolitionist group…good luck. and of course that racist darwin, and his racist theory of evolution have institutionalized ’scientific’ racism
right4life
It’s irrelevant if I name a single atheist abolitionist group. My point is that those in favour of institutionalized gender and race discrimination invariably use the Bible as the cornerstone of their argument. Those that stood against those things were in the minority.
Institutionalized scientific racism indeed. You know nothing of the topic, so please just stop. Unless you think you are well versed in evolutionary biology because you saw Expelled. That’s cute, but it would be like discussing 9-11 with some jackass who thinks Moore got it right.
Krydor on May 16, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Look, I am a Christian, and I do find homosexual sex disturbing, but Hell, let ‘em get hitched. What REALLY is it going to harm? Are your children suddenly going to be in danger? Are you and your spouse going to divorce because of it? How is it an affront to you and your family at all?
Yes, it offends religious convictions, but we can’t force things like this one the wills of others. That’s what the jihadists are doing, and a fat lot of good they’ve done the world. Leave them alone. You won’t be converting anyone with this vitriol.
Capitana on May 16, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Decent people love change, if that change is for the better.
That’s entirely subjective. Define better.
The change you’re talking about is for everyone else to submit to your sick God forsaken thoughts.
Like what? Other than my love of Iron Maiden (I managed to get floor tickets, dude.) and the belief that the Oakland Raiders are the greatest football team, ever, I really don’t know to what you are referring.
Submit to my thoughts. My MENTAL POWERS are AWESOME.
That’s your idea of change.
apacalyps
You know me so well. It’s like you looked into my soul.
Krydor on May 16, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Krydor,
Those who ended slavery used the Bible as their justification, the cornerstone of their argument. Slavery existed from time immemorial until Christians defeated it with Biblical arguments, which they acted upon.
The Royal Navy (to the consternation of European countries and the hysterical rage of African/Arab countries) enforced Britain’s anti-slave-trade policy by sinking hundreds of ships. The US fought a bloody civil war over it.
You’re the fellow who claims that Islam saved Western Civillisation from the destructiveness of Christianity. I have twice rebuked you with linked articles. If make this claim again I will accuse you of being a liar.
aengus on May 16, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Whatever it takes for people to pay rates according to their risks. The insurance companies have data on hetro marriages. They have some data on gays, not enough to make a positive determination, but there are studies showing the gay male life expectancy is at the levels it was for all men in the late 1800’s. You and I should not be forced to subsidize that.
csdeven on May 16, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Answering for myself, I think I could.
In fact, I’d argue that many people do choose to do so. When the opposite sex is unavailable, many people engage in homosexual relationships and then go back to heterosexual relationships when the opposite sex again becomes available.
Esthier on May 16, 2008 at 11:17 PM
You really shouldn’t bother.
I can sympathize. He did the same thing to me on another thread and has now convinced himself that I’m a fake Christian simply because he had no idea what I was saying.
Why is the door only being opened now instead of when gay marriage was legalized before? Also, men are already marrying men, and women are already marrying women.
This isn’t something brand new.
Esthier on May 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM
I have twice rebuked you with linked articles. If make this claim again I will accuse you of being a liar.
aengus
And I sez whut? Must have missed it. You can call me a liar, but it doesn’t make me one. I’ll venture back a couple of pages. It certainly was an oversight.
I’m the fellow who claimed, and it is a matter of historical record, that the Caliphate preserved most of the knowledge the Catholic Church intentionally destroyed. The Caliphate, y’see, loved hoarding knowledge. We’ll leave it at that.
Also, the US civil war was not fought over slavery. Just as WWII was not fought over concentration camps. Criminy.
Krydor on May 16, 2008 at 11:26 PM
If we’re saying that heterosexuals should be encouraged by the government to have children, how would the government do that without discriminating against gay couples?
I’ve always thought that marriage was the way the government encourages heterosexuals to have children, otherwise, why would the government even care to involve itself in marriages? It otherwise does nothing to help the government.
By encouraging long, monogamous relationships between heterosexuals, the government is, either intentionally or unintentionally, encouraging heterosexuals to start a family. Families don’t always include children, but that is the norm.
Esthier on May 16, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Oh no, not Fjordman. Sorry, but no. Not now, not tomorrow and not next week. I was hoping to see something along the lines of “How the Irish Saved Western Civilization”, which is a personal fun little thing of mine, due to my heritage. Instead, I get Fjordman.
Don’t read Fjordman, it will rot your mind. Start here
You sure would hate to learn, at some point, where Paine got some of his ideas.
Krydor on May 16, 2008 at 11:41 PM
I did not call you a liar. I said that I might accuse you of being a liar in the future if you kept repeating your Islam saved European culture nonsense. In the meantime you could always provide sources to back up your claims.
Uh I know that. Nonetheless the Union liberated hundreds of thousands of slaves and the end of slavery was a significant part of the war effort.
No we won’t leave it at that. Its untrue. You’re actually delusional if you think that.
If Fjordman is not a credible source then could you please debunk his arguments?
Where did he get his ideas from? Islam?
aengus on May 17, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Gay marriage would discourage the promiscuous behavior that contributes to health problems in the homosexual community. Maybe a better way to put it - it would encourage stable, monogamous relationships. So that’s a public health benefit. ..
Basically, if you’re against gay marriage, more power to you. Don’t marry another dude.
RightOFLeft on May 17, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Actually your wrong. I hate to bring this up now, but I like to defend me some Persians when I get the chance. Cyrus the great did away with slavery, and they even had a bill of rights. I know it blows the premise of 300 out of the water, but why let history get in the way of a good movie.
DFCtomm on May 17, 2008 at 2:06 AM
aengus,
This is insane. You think Fjordman has blown the lid off some LIBERAL ACADEMIC CONSPIRACY to SUPPRESS THE TRVTH. Well, if that’s your source that overturns over 1,000 years of historical fact, then I suggest you crack some books not written or endorsed by Fjordman.
This is what irks me about the internet. There isn’t enough space to Fisk old Fjordman here. Which, I suppose, means you think you’ve won something. Not so fast. I wonder what that is all about, perhaps you should click the link.
I’m not interested in teaching you or converting you or whatever it is you think this about. All I’m saying, and there aren’t many who disagree, is this: Islam saved Western Philosophy. You think otherwise, and your source is a fellow who has been nailed for questionable scholarship on more than one occasion by Charles Johnson. Yeah, so I’m going with what I know and you can continue to go with what you think is right.
I’ll give you one, though, Fjordman is all “lookit this! no Translation of Politics! However, he omits the other works that did not exist in 12 century Europe.
Krydor on May 17, 2008 at 2:15 AM
Krydor your referring to the Caliphate as a monolith, and it wasn’t. While the Caliphate by definition was made up of Muslims, they had a lot of very, very smart dhemmis working for them, the Greeks and Jews. I don’t think anybody can deny that muslims preserved the knowledge, in that they simply didnt destroy it, but will we ever know how much of that credit is actually deserves to be given to their servants?
DFCtomm on May 17, 2008 at 2:22 AM
The two quintessential patrons of backwardness were, for the christian church St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and, for Islam, Abu Hāmed Mohammad ibn Mohammad al-Ghazzālī (1058-1111). Both essentially insisted that man’s only important role on Earth was to prepare for the afterlife.
The result in both cases was similar. In Europe, the Dark Ages where the pursuit of knowledge ground to a halt and the christian church maintained that the pre-Christian thinkers had nothing to offer; all that is needed is in the bible. The same happened to Islam whose golden age ended after the time of al_Ghazali and the predominent line of thought became that all that all the knowledge that is needed is in the Qur’an.
Europe came out of the Dark ages but Islam has not yet recovered. Today the worst of these Dark Age mysticisms are still around in the respective forms of Wahhibism, for Islam and fundamentalist Christianity of which a few representatives have posted in this thread.
Annar on May 17, 2008 at 7:25 AM
uh yeah right. your claims are fanciful to say the least, when you have anything to back up your ‘claims’ let me know.
right4life on May 17, 2008 at 9:16 AM
typical liberal lies. you sound like a racist.
right4life on May 17, 2008 at 9:17 AM
you can say that, but you cannot prove it. its VERY relevent. oh you mean racists like Darwin, Haeckel, and Watson? in a long line of racist evolutionists??
just wondering…as Gould said:
“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128
right4life on May 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM
enough to make you look very foolish, not that its very hard, obviously. your hairygod darwin was a racist, his followers were/are, and his ‘theory’ is inherently racist. as Gould admitted in my previous post.
right4life on May 17, 2008 at 9:23 AM
DFCtomm,
we ever know how much of that credit is actually deserves to be given to their servants?
Good point. The thing to keep in mind, though is that those dhimmis could not do anything in Christian Europe. There was an exodous south after the last school was closed and they remained even after the rise of Islam.
Paying the dhimnmi tax was preferable to execution for heresy, after all.
Like to take this opportunity to apologize for derailing this topic.
Krydor on May 17, 2008 at 9:23 AM
enough to make you look very foolish, not that its very hard, obviously. your hairygod darwin was a racist, his followers were/are, and his ‘theory’ is inherently racist. as Gould admitted in my previous post.
right4life
Oh brother. All this means is that you have no idea what the theory is. Junk like this why the liberals laugh their asses off at the right. The theory of change over time is inherently racist? Really? Wow!
Krydor on May 17, 2008 at 9:30 AM
if it wasn’t for the judeo-christian concept of a rational God, who made an ordered universe, science would not even be possible. allah is arbitrary, and can do whatever he/it wants to, and change at any time. unlike the God of the Bible.
people like Da Vince, Bacon, Kepler, etc would not be possible in an islamic society. whatever science islam had was from the many people they conquered…after islam pervaded societies, science was finished.
right4life on May 17, 2008 at 9:32 AM
thats the ‘politically correct’ version of the theory of evolution. its a canard to cover the atheism inherent in the theory. Even gould admits the racism in evolution, why can’t you? its very simple, evolution states the races did not evolve equally, so there must be one more ‘fit’ than the other, and the subtitle of your hairygod’s book is
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
and I know you darwiniacs like to say that ‘darwin really meant species’ uh yeah right.
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242).
btw: mutations do not add up, micro-evolution does not add up to macro, look at the tuatara.
right4life on May 17, 2008 at 9:36 AM
right4life,
Yeah, and the scientific method is a direct descendant from Classical Philosophy. Wouldn’t exist without Plato and Hippocrates and so forth. You know, the dudes who were essentially erased from history until the 12 century?
I like the cherry picking, by the by. AIG is a pretty neato source. Have fun with that.
Krydor on May 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM
who do you think perserved all those people?? hmmm?? try the irish monks. and history 101
cherry picking…snort! too funny, the truth hurts, doesn’t it?
I’m sure you proud of the long line of racist evolutionists, from Darwin to Haeckel, to Galton, Sanger, and now Watson!!
right4life on May 17, 2008 at 9:51 AM
who do you think perserved all those people?? hmmm?? try the irish monks. and history 101
Finally! Waiting for that reference. I get a kick out of it, but the most complete translations came from Islamic sources. Sorry, dude.
cherry picking…snort! too funny, the truth hurts, doesn’t it?
I’m sure you proud of the long line of racist evolutionists, from Darwin to Haeckel, to Galton, Sanger, and now Watson!!
Yes, I am in absolute pain that the TOE has brought about advances in biology that have saved millions of lives.
Here’s the thing, and it will trouble you to no end, the racism of Charles Darwin (mild for his era, but I digress) in no way invalidates the TOE. The Origin of Species is a foundational document, and the science has advanced in the past 150 odd years.
Krydor on May 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM
really? go ahead and post your proof.
it hasn’t done anything for medicine. this is too funny!! I mean you’re clueless about the ’science’ you pretend to understand. I can see why evolutionists don’t want to debate creationists or ID people, preferring to silence them.
even coyne admits the uselessness of evolution:
To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7106/full/442983a.html
It is curious that Charles Darwin, perhaps medicine’s most famous dropout, provided the impetus for a subject that figures so rarely in medical education. Indeed, even the iconic textbook example of evolution-antibiotic resistance-is rarely described as “evolution” in relevant papers published in medical journals [1].
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050112&ct=1
Here’s the thing, and it will trouble you to no end, the racism of Charles Darwin (mild for his era, but I digress) in no way invalidates the TOE.
right4life on May 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM
oops your ‘muslims are the saviors of civilization’ theory is just that…
The reason why the Christian West for centuries didn’t have easy access to the Classical learning of the Christian East was because Muslims and Jihad had made the Mediterranean unsafe. It has to be the height of absurdity to block access to something and then take credit for transmitting it, yet that is precisely what Arabs do. As stronger states slowly grew up in the West, regular contact with their Eastern cousins was gradually re-established, starting with the Italian city-states. And as soon as direct contact was established, Western Europeans gained access to the original Greco-Roman manuscripts preserved in Constantinople. They didn’t need to rely on limited translations in Arabic, which were anyway made from the same Byzantine manuscripts in the first place, and frequently by Christians. Moreover, Muslims have spent more than one thousand years systematically wiping out Greek culture in the Mediterranean region, a process which continues at Cyprus even into the twenty-first century, which makes it patently ridiculous when they now brag about how much we owe them for their efforts at “preserving the Greek heritage.” The efforts of Arabs are, in my view, as overrated as those by the Byzantine Empire are underrated.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018278.php
right4life on May 17, 2008 at 10:13 AM
as far as the irish…and monks in general…
One of the great contributions of the monasteries was the preservation of
the learning of the classical world and that of the church. Learning did not
entirely die out in western Europe, of course. Seeing that the ability to read
Greek was quickly disappearing, the sixth-century Roman scholar Boethius, an administrator under the Ostrogothic king Theodoric, determined to preserve Greek learning by translating all of Plato and Aristotle into Latin. Only Aristotle’s treatises on logic were translated, and these remained the sole works of that philosopher available in the West until the twelfth century.
Unjustly accused of treachery by Theodoric, Boethius was thrown into prison, where he wrote The Consolation of Philosophy while awaiting execution. This little work later became a medieval textbook on philosophy.
Cassiodorus, a contemporary of Boethius who had also served Theodoric,
devoted most of his life to the collection and preservation of classical
knowledge. By encouraging the monks to copy valuable manuscripts, he was instrumental in making the monasteries centers of learning. Following his example, many monasteries established scriptoria, departments concerned exclusively with copying manuscripts.
During the early Middle Ages most education took place in the
monasteries. In the late sixth and seventh centuries, when the effects of the
barbarian invasions were still being felt on the Continent, Irish monasteries
provided a safe haven for learning. There men studied Greek and Latin, copied and preserved manuscripts, and in illuminating them produced masterpieces of art. The Book of Kells is a surviving example of their skill.
http://history-world.org/churchmiddleages.htm
now where is your reference for anything you said??
right4life on May 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM
right4life,
Well, I can see that talking to you is an utter waste of time. Like I said, I have over 1,000 years of the historical record on my side, and you have Fjordman.
Utter waste of time. I had these kinds of conversations with truthers, to no avail. You are certain of something, and I could tell you that the works of Hippocrates were lost until they were retranslated from Arabic, but you wouldn’t care. I could tell you that Fjordman made several errors of omission in part one, but if you knew anything about the topic at hand, I wouldn’t have to.
Not reading parts 2 or 3, either.
Krydor on May 17, 2008 at 3:43 PM
so you say. but in 6 hours or so you could not find any references to back up your assertions.
I could tell you the sky is green, so what? any proof???
you darwiniacs are so arrogant, its laughable. you think whatever you say is from on high, and has to be right.
delusional.
right4life on May 17, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Very thought-provoking analogy in this video.
Red Pill on May 17, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Comment pages: « 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 »