Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
posted at 2:05 pm on October 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
A done deal, and given Connecticut’s deep blue electorate, one not likely to be overridden by amendment.
Probably good for McCain, though.
The Supreme Court released its historic ruling at 11:30 a.m. Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory and that the state’s “understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection.”…
In a statement released minutes after the decision was announced, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with it, but uphold it. She said she was proud to sign the state’s civil unions law in 2005, the first in the nation enacted without a court mandate, and thought it was “equitable and just.”
“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Rell said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling.”…
The opposition will now turn its sights to the November election, when voters will be asked whether the state should convene a constitutional convention. “Connecticut voters will have one opportunity on Nov. 4 to reassert their right to self government. We must vote yes.”
Here’s the opinion. Skip ahead to page 21 for the crux of it, declaring gays a “quasi-suspect class” for purposes of the state’s equal protection jurisprudence. What “class” you are pretty much determines as a rule whether you can be discriminated against by law; if you belong to a class that’s “suspect,” i.e. historically powerless and persecuted, then the legislature has virtually no leeway against you. The Connecticut Supremes decided they couldn’t call gays a fully “suspect” class because the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t declared them that (yet), so they opted for “quasi-suspect” based on four factors: (1) historic discrimination, (2) whether sexual orientation is related to one’s ability to contribute to society (this is here to give the state extra power to regulate the disabled), (3) immutability of sexual orientation, i.e. is it a choice or is it inborn and thus unchangeable, and (4) whether gays lack political power, which starts on page 28 and is the most interesting section of the four.
All in all, the analysis is similar to the California Supreme Court’s, which also used an equal protection argument to strike down their state’s marriage statute. The fatal blow for gay marriage opponents is the fact that the state already allows civil unions for gay couples; I think laypeople look at that and assume that that means the state, having acted in good faith, will be given the benefit of the doubt when gays inevitably sue for full marriage rights, but as I’ve tried to explain before, it doesn’t work that way. To discriminate by law, you need a good reason. Admitting that gays should be entitled to all the same rights as married couples but not the label of “marriage” itself forces the court to conclude that the distinction is purely semantic, and semantics simply ain’t good enough as a “good reason.” From page 62:
Although we acknowledge that many legislators and many of their constituents hold strong personal convictions with respect to preserving the traditional concept of marriage as a heterosexual institution, such beliefs, no matter how deeply held, do not constitute the exceedingly persuasive justification required to sustain a statute that discriminates on the basis of a quasi-suspect classification. ‘‘That civil marriage has traditionally excluded same-sex couples—i.e., that the ‘historic
and cultural understanding of marriage’ has been between a man and a woman—cannot in itself provide a [sufficient] basis for the challenged exclusion. To say that the discrimination is ‘traditional’ is to say only that the discrimination has existed for a long time. A classification, however, cannot be maintained merely ‘for its own sake’ [Romer v. Evans, supra, 517 U.S. 635]. Instead, the classification ([that is], the exclusion of gay [persons] from civil marriage) must advance a state interest that is separate from the classification itself [see id., 633, 635]. Because the ‘tradition’ of excluding gay [persons] from civil marriage is no different from the classification itself, the exclusion cannot be justified on the basis of ‘history.’ Indeed, the justification of ‘tradition’ does not explain the classification; it merely repeats it. Simply put, a history or tradition of discrimination—no matter how entrenched—does not make the discrimination constitutional . . . .’’ (Citation omitted.) Hernandez v. Robles, supra, 7 N.Y.3d 395 (Kaye, C. J., dissenting)…It is only because the state has not advanced a sufficiently persuasive justification for denying same sex couples the right to marry that the traditional definition of marriage necessarily must be expanded to include such couples. If the defendants were able to demonstrate sufficient cause to deny same sex couples the right to marry, then we would reject the plaintiffs’ claim and honor the state’s desire to preserve the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In the absence of such a showing, however, we cannot refuse to follow settled equal protection jurisprudence merely because doing so will result in a change in the definition of marriage.
Exit question: Time to start talking about Obama’s judicial appointments?
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: « Previous 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 17 Next »
Certainly not.
Saying that all men were created equal (we’ll assume the genderless definition of the word man to save time) is not the same as saying that all arrangements of cohabitation should be treated with equal deference and legitimacy.
If I could just digress for a second. Upthread someone compared the lack of a federal marriage law was comparable to lack of women’s suffrage. They said the reason women weren’t given the vote was because they were seen as mentally and physically weak. This was such a contemptible statement I responded with mockery.
This was not Alexis de Tocqueville’s opinion when he visited American and wrote down his impressions, priasing American women and the most virtuous in the world. The question is why didn’t de Toqueville see misery and political oppression of women? The reason I would suggest is that while women did not have the political rights to vote themselves, they had democratic representation as part of a family unit.
Another French writer who wrote a book about divorce at the beginning of the last century describes better what I’m trying to articulate. I can not find the reference (again!) but I will look for it. By the way I’m not suggesting women shouldn’t be allowed vote just that there are traditional understandings of society that are not only completely unfashionable but mischaracterised by modern people (liberals usually) who see the past, including American history, as a a long litany of evil and political oppression.
If homosexuality is wrong or deviant as I and others believe it to be then homosexual marriage cannot lead to real happiness. I cannot agree with you the modern liberal pursuit of unfettered equality in every sense–and the attempt to turn American society upside down and inside out to achieve it–is the culmination of what America is all about. If stringent equality in every sphere is the highest expression of American political culture then on what basis can you deny that Communism would best fulfill it?
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 6:16 PM
I haven’t shown any disrespect to homosexuals. I cling to my theological understanding of Christianity and I don’t support homosexual marriage. Thats the extent of my so-called extremism.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 6:18 PM
That’s fine. Your beliefs are wrong, evidenced by happily married homosexual couples in this country, as well as long-term homosexual couples that have been together longer than many marriages.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 6:20 PM
I just catching up on this thread, and something strange happened. It was just a moment, but for a single moment I actually looked fondly upon Islam, and then it went away.
DFCtomm on October 12, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Um, yes you have. Some don’t support interracial marriages. You tell me how respectful it is for someone to refer to them as “racial-genocide-committing cross-breeders”.
The point’s been done to death. Put simply, if you haven’t got the good sense god or whoever gave you to love and respect your fellow man based on the way god or whoever made them when he has done nothing to you, then god or whoever help you.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 6:24 PM
I don’t doubt a few here have. Many parallels in their thinking.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 6:25 PM
I guess so.
Yes. It is of the most crucial importance. I would not spend so much time thinking and typing about this issue unless I believed that.
Nine-tenths of the adult population have drank alcohol continuously for several centuries. Which is why I find it a poor comparison for legalising cannabis/heroin etc. I also do not think that sexual relations engaged in by 2% of the population (which are not prohibited remember) should be normalised by law and ceremony.
Its hard to articulate “What is society”. Abraham Lincoln talked about “the mystic chords of memory” linking Americans to each other and to their predecessors that came before. (I’m not American, in case theres any confusion). My biggest issue is opposition to mass immigration because I do not believe that large scale population transfers from say North Africa to France can be achieved without seriously disrupting the social fabric and making assimilation null and void.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 6:27 PM
10-12% is more accurate.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 6:29 PM
You’re a little off the mark here aengus. It isn’t really equality that has become the ruling panacea of the day. Rather, it is what Joe Biden hailed in the VP debate: fairness. He used it in the context of soaking “the rich,” but it applies here as well.
The argument is not whether homosexuals have equal recourse to the law for criminal acts done against them, right to vote, and all other protections necessary to conduct life unhindered, but whether it is fair that heterosexual marriages, for reasons both obvious and historical, are given “greater status” than the newest idea homosexual activists have come up with in gay marriage.
Doing things in the name of fairness without regards to their consequences is the gold standard of socialists. They continually ignore all the damage their beliefs have brought about despite all its history of failure and bloodshed. And so too here, the pro-officiated sodomy believers quest onward for “fairness,” despite the long history of religious persecution that follows such rulings.
So yeah, we had some socialist regimes that caused genocide, poverty, and opposition to human life and dignity… not that there’s anything wrong with that.
BKennedy on October 12, 2008 at 6:30 PM
So you “prove” my disrespect to homosexuals by launching into a (fictional?) argument about interracial marriage?
I can respect homosexuals (and I do) without approving of their choices or supporting their political goals.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Well obviously I’m not using the word equality in the sense that Thomas Jefferson would have understood it, or you and I understand it but my meaning was clear.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 6:32 PM
The first point could have been used a few decades ago to justify banning interracial marriages. Divorce and women’s rights have also led to legal changes in the marriage definition.
There is no requirement for people to be normal to get married (e.g., Britney Spears). Also, there is no requirement to possess the ability to reproduce.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 6:34 PM
You cannot be THAT ignorant unless you live in SF.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 6:35 PM
It’s an ideal and a standard which presumes normal. That’s a difficult feat to pull off when the ability to procreate is impossible due to the participants not fitting the model.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 6:37 PM
To you, I am extremely ignorant. And I couldn’t be happier.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 6:38 PM
I imagine there is a poster in an elementary school somewhere in MA (or maybe Barack’s stomping ground, Chicago) that reads:
“Watch what you say! One of your classmates may be gay.”
Cause you know, first graders think about sexual orientation all the time. The idea is to expose it to children early, then the gay activists come in sponsored by some PC activist group like PRIDE, the seeds sown that being gay is no different or worse than being straight, and scoop up whoever they can. By 16-18, they have a whole new generation of conquests who are “gay and proud,” because “there’s nothing wrong with admitting you are gay.”
For instance, Governor Deval Patrick’s 18 year old daughter claims to be a lesbian. She likely got there through watching lesbian propaganda on television “The Letter L” and the mass infiltration of gay activists in the state since OUR fiat a few years ago. She is now heading off to Smith College, an all-girl college where one of friends attends.
She will never be a wife and mother. She will, however, be hunted by every single lesbian activist looking for influence with her father. Homosexual activists are perverts: They view people as objects, as means to an end. It’s why they get along so chummy with the pro-aborts, at least until the subject of testing your child for sexual orientation inevitably comes up.
BKennedy on October 12, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Lost cause. Sorry to waste your time.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 6:39 PM
No legal requirement obviously but there is a societal requirement in order to propagate the human species. Everytime I’ve made this argument on this thread the response has been that divorce has already rendered society dysfunctional on this point so why not introduce homosexual marriage then? To which I say no–anyoen who wants to argue for outlawing no-fault divorce will get a sympathetic hearing from me but there is no way that multiplying dysfunctions on top of each other just because is a moral argument.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 6:40 PM
You didn’t waste my time. I enjoyed this discussion. I hope you believe me when I say I don’t bear you any animosity.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 6:42 PM
We don’t need to – they supply enough all on their own.
But I will say that I wish they would all go hang out with their favorite perverted friends, away from me.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 6:46 PM
A group of guys hanging out a bar hitting on girls can also seem to view them as objects, or a means to an end. The girls in turn dress to display some of their objects in order to attract attention.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 6:48 PM
It would be easy to determine if some straight couples were unable to reproduce. We don’t make that one of the criteria.
It isn’t unusual for people in their 60s or 70s to marry each other. They aren’t looking to start a family but rather to share love, support and a home.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 6:50 PM
How could anyone accuse you of animosity? Or narcissism? Or delusions of grandeur, sanctimonius ego trips, etc…
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Oh yes, but I refuse to let “equality” be hijacked in the way that “marriage” is. In other words, I do not let them define the terms. Thus why I have, in all instances of posting, actively policed my statements to remove most of the instances of “gay” (a nonexistant identity) and homosexual (a dubious category for a preference) to replace them with sodomite (something or someone defined by the practice of sodomy, an act).
This is because everyone with a passing knowledge of english knows that actions are mutable, preferences are murky, and identities are immutable. I refuse to cede that homosexuality is immutable, in other words.
Gov. Jim McGreevey of “Gay American” fame for instance lived his life with a wife and kids and then had an affair with a man he hired into his administration.
So he was gay, except for the years and years he spent creating children with his wife? So you’re telling me that he was acting against his so-called nature by umm… courting a woman, marrying her, and having children with her?
The dude isn’t gay, he’s just a pervert and an adulterer. The only reason he said he was gay was a CYOA (Cover your own &^%) where everyone responds “NTTAWWT.” The media quickly backed off after that, because naturally everyone in the media promotes “NTTAWWT.”
BKennedy on October 12, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Only atheists go to bars. God told me so.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 6:53 PM
I hope for your sake that your fiancee disagrees. My husband certainly does.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Not all heterosexual couples will beget children or be able to beget children but encouraging heterosexuals couples to marry in general will lead to the next generation of youngsters being born.
Also, it isn’t as easy as you think to determine fertility. Some supposedly infertile couples get lucky with fertility pills or other treatments.
We known for certain that two men will not produce a child.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Damn straight. Nobody but you gets to define them. Anyone else should just shut the hell up and be…accepting, right?.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 6:54 PM
My answer would be similar to MadisonConservative’s on this point. Also, when I got married I don’t recall the state asking me–they haven’t followed up since then to make sure something happened. Though I guess my two loud and destructive children are evidence.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Twas mostly a joke.
Not that it’s not based in some reality, sadly.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Doubleplusungood post. Minitrue will visit doubleplusfast.
BKennedy on October 12, 2008 at 6:56 PM
I would also wonder if they support the denial of marriage to a man and a woman with no intention to have children. Not talking about lacking the ability, but having it and not using it, or using birth control in perpetuity.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Understood. Its bad enough that homosexuals have hijacked the word “gay”. (I’m an old semantic.)
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 6:58 PM
I see you’re against the making of English the official language, as well.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Hahaha. I conceded the point to Viscount Bolingbroke upthread.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Very often, yes. Some people actually don’t value sex and believe it’s not all the important in a marriage, which is why my comment was only half joking as well.
You mean they didn’t send a government worker out to your house? I guess that was just me then.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 7:00 PM
A test could rule out some women (say those who had a hysterechtomy). Others it would be in a grey area.
Two lesbians can produce children with artificial fertility not unlike what some straight couples rely on. At some point most people will probably use a type of designer sperm to create babies.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 7:00 PM
They shouldn’t. A child needs a mother and a father. Men and women are different but complementary.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 7:03 PM
lol!
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Are you sure she’s joking? This thread has lots of folds in the drapery, if you catch my drift.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 7:07 PM
What if one of the women is really butch?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Slime.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Yes, but they are all looking for a few minutes of heaven.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Them gates ain’t never been pearly in my experience.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Slime. (just following your lead)
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Islam would take care of both groups that are involved in this argument, and there would be, glorious, silence.
DFCtomm on October 12, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Ha ha. I hope there isn’t a test or a trip to the DMV involved.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Islam is not, contrary to appearances, a traditional moral religion. Mohammed revelled in sexual licentiousness and then, as an afterthought, commanded strict brakes on the very forces he had himself unleashed.
He enjoyed several wives but when the social forces that this unnatural arrangement loosed became clear Muslims men were thought to regard themselves as potential rapists and their women evil tempters. Islam is antithetical to a traditional Christian understanding of sexual morality.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 7:19 PM
All shall learn Newspeak, and “gay” shall be the operative word. Thus all shall be gay, ungay, doublegay, doubleungay, doubleplusgay, or doubleplusungay. By Mintrue will this be enforced.
BKennedy on October 12, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Yikes! Put me down for doubleplusungay.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 7:24 PM
No, of course not. And for proof we invited him in our bed, cause we’re immoral depraved people like that.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Speaking in tongues as well? I’m not at all surprised.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 7:25 PM
No, but afterwards, it isn’t uncommon for many to worship at the porcelain throne.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Some people really have a problem with the concept of homosexuality. I’m sure they would just as quickly say they have no problem with homosexuals themselves. I treat that with as much skepticism as those who say they are against the war but support the troops. Either you want the troops to win(and therefore minimize casualties), or you don’t.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Well that depends if the ivy around the gates has been trimmed.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Of course. They have to make sure you know what you’re doing after all. How else can they be sure you’ll produce children for the state like a good marriage?
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Well, I sure don’t want the queers to win. Doubleplusungay.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 7:31 PM
A glass of water has more capacity for rational thinking than you do.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Here’s a concept that will really blow your minds:
Transsexuals getting married.
1. What if a Male-to-Female TS wants to marry a man?
2. What if a MTF wants to marry another MTF?
3. What if a MTF wants to marry a Female-to-Male TS?
When do gender requirements break down under the weight of the universe?
Also, to head off silliness: One can get one’s birth certificate re-issued with a corrected gender, making scenarios 1 and 3 completely legal. Not conventional, but legal.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Either you’re claiming to be smarter than a glass of water or you are clearly confused. Which is it, sir/madam?
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 7:35 PM
I’ve been told I’m a cunning linguist. I once studied English at college, but I learned more under self-study.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 7:35 PM
I wouldn’t go that far. I think it’s possible to disagree with what people do without having a problem with the people themselves.
To take an extreme example, a friend of mine was having an affair with a married man. I think a lot of her but very much did not agree with what she was doing. I didn’t waste my time arguing with her when we’d see each other, but I also never pretended that I approved of what she was doing.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Hillarious! Made me LOL.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Perhaps the state should determine the number of children per couple in order to make sure each marriage benefits society.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Odd analogy but it depends what you mean by “no problem with homosexuals”. I have no personal hatred for homosexuals and don’t feel the need to be rude to them or shun them when I encounter them even if I disagree with their lifestyle.
Healthy people have to be able at some level to separate their personal happiness from their political feelings. So if I get a new job or pay rise or whatever I may be personally happy. If later that day I read an article describing Britian’s further decline into the abyss of Islam I will be politically miserable but it won’t take away my feelings of happiness about my own life.
Its complicated because for many liberals, especially the out-and-out whack jobs, their political life is inseparable from their personal happiness so they get profoundly depressed when Bush wins an election or somesuch. But for healthy people this should not be a problem.
When you add in religion its another layer but you’ll hear people say “Love the sinner but hate the sin” which is how such matters should be approached.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 7:38 PM
He’s not claiming anything about himself. The statement was aimed at you.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Of course. It should also mandate a time requirement, lest marrieds put off child baring for too long. We wouldn’t want women getting pregnant at 40 and being irresponsible like Palin.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Like MadisonConservative earlier you have trouble conceiving of the idea of societal good without conjoining it in your mind with statist totalitarianism.
Australia, one of the freest societies in human history, asks married couples to have three children. If Australian politicians can understand and even promote the societal good–apart from some totalitarian fantasy–why can’t you?
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 7:42 PM
It also has far stricter gun control laws. Free society, eh?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 7:45 PM
I was referring specifically to those who hate homosexuality rather than those for whom homosexuality is simply not their thing.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 7:47 PM
I didn’t know that, but they have a big continent to fill and it makes sense. If it is voluntary and helps the country, I’m for it. If it is compulsory and for the good of the country, I’m against it. If Australia were to forbid some marriages based on the inability to reproduce, that would be wrong.
If the government wanted to have a national holiday, as Russia did, encouraging everyone to have sex I’d be in favor of that.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Well heres hoping they appeal their gun control laws but you’re arguing a tangent – you haven’t addressed the point I made.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 7:48 PM
It’s not a tangent. This whole discussion has been about whether gay marriage should be a freedom for Americans. When you cite “free nations” to make your argument, and there is evidence to show they are not necessarily free, it’s a relevant point. Gay marriage is legal throughout much of Europe, and many of those countries are among the freest in human history(well, were until the gay-hating Muslims took over).
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Yes its voluntary and I’m glad you’re in favour. People really do listen to their leaders ,as Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No [To Drugs” campaign, which precipitated a decrease in drug use, proved.
The worst thing Margret Thatcher ever said was “There is no such thing as society” which became a ghastly self-fulfilling prophecy as regards modern Britain.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Okay. It is relevant. But if Australia is not as free as it should be that is due more to its gun control laws than its appeal for married couples to have children.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Headline on American Dad newspaper gag:
“Trans Fats banned in New York
Fat Trannies still allowed”
BKennedy on October 12, 2008 at 8:01 PM
I’m all for leaders asking citizens to contribute to a greater common goal. Kennedy did that at times in his presidency. If McCain were to call for the nation to reduce its dependence on foreign energy I’d support that.
My local taxes are very high and most of the money goes to public schools or other town spending benefiting families. My kids might not use the schools but if I have to be overtaxed for something I don’t use then having it benefit other parents provides some consolation.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 8:02 PM
I think you’re pretending to be dense. He’s angry and boorish to boot so he really has nothing to say about me that should be taken seriously.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Yeah, I thought about that way back when I first heard they were banning trans fats. Sadly it seems my post was too complicated to respond to. We’d rather talk about gun rights in Australia.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 8:06 PM
That would be very good. If he could finagle it in such a way as to give OPEC and Russia a run for their money that would be even better.
That is a good attitude to have.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 8:08 PM
I see.
I liked that idea as well.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 8:09 PM
There’s a similar story about a couple who married but were forced to divorce because he became a she, making their union no longer legal. Then when gay marriage became legal, they remarried.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Let’s see if you’re lying or being honest, Esthier.
Not true. I’ve read your posts here and you’ve said stuff like Evangelicals believe this, or Christians believe that. Now, if you were a true Bible-believing Christian I wouldn’t care if you spoke for Christians, but I don’t think you are a true Christian. You remind me of the Mormons who claim to be Christians but are not. The Mormons have a different god than I do. Just cause they say god doesn’t mean it’s the same one. They take positions completely opposite to what the Bible teaches and what a Christian would believe, the same way you do. Here’s an example of you’re speaking for Bible-believing Christians:
That’s an insightful statement in light of the fact that you’ve told us that the Bible is NOT the Word of God:
Newsflash: You don’t speak for this believer, Esthier. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that, “ALL SCRIPTURE is given by INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”. See also Psalms 12:6-7, Matthew 24:35, 2 Timothy 3:16, Jeremiah 30:2, 2 Peter 1:21, etc.
Really? Well, it sure doesn’t look like you believe the how events are described in the Bible:
And read below. I like how you use the word “IF” casting more doubt on the biblical story:
Looks to me like you have some real problems with Noah and the Ark and it’s caused you to compromise the Bible. And those are only a few examples I’ve given.
Let me set this one up. I posted that the Bible tells us clearly in Exodus 20:11, that God made everything in six days. Everything in heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. And if the average layman cannot understand that verse, then the Bible is incapable of being understood. Esthier responded to that comment with:
In otherwords, six long days of creation, billions of years, and acts of creation during those eons. This is a trend folks. She’s always casting doubt on God’s Word. Never in support of Scripture always doubting it. She’s very sneaky. Here’s another one:
You say you don’t think Adam was around when the world was newly formed. Huh? If you don’t believe in evolution what does that mean?? Man was created on Day Six. Again, I’ve haven’t seen you defend the literal 6 day creation account in Genesis. You’re ALWAYS casting doubt upon it.
You sure did say that! And you don’t believe both are provable. See below:
Another lie exposed.
If a homosexual is fine with God. What does that mean?? This must be another one of your sneaky attempts to avoid telling us how you really feel on these issues. Do you believe openly gay people, proud to be gay, do you think they can be saved and are going to heaven?
Esthier, I don’t know who you think you’re kidding, but you make comments that a believer would not make. You contradict the fundamentals of the Christian faith.
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Says the guy who has insulted a woman under the misapprehension that her mother is gay.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 8:14 PM
By those words, you imply she is lying. So what’s the point of hiding your contempt?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 8:15 PM
As you seem to be implying that the introduction of gay marriage will lead to injustice, I could just as easily suggest that the lack of freedoms in Australia “all run together”, as it were.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Why bother to encourage breeding? Do we seriously have a population deficit like countries in Europe and elsewhere? Honestly, higher population is not desirable. A stable to slightly growing population is.
Personally I *hate* paying property taxes so I can subsidize the cost of raising children. Society’s good my ass, I could use that money! The only argument in favor of publicly funding education I can agree with is keeping kids off the streets as much as possible. I’m sure they’re wonderful bundles of joy and all that, but some need keeping.
Guns: Love ‘em. Best cure for crime is an armed populace.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 8:22 PM
I don’t need to imply it because I’ve stated it outright several times and provided examples where the introduction of gay marriage has led to injustice in many places–including Boston.
Good luck finding a seconder for that suggestion.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Is it exercise time already?
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 8:23 PM
You mean the injustice of Catholic organizations closing shop instead of facilitating adoptions into same-sex homes? Or the injustice of those organizations wanting to deny children a loving home?
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 8:26 PM
So future generations will exist.
Yes.
You could argue that lower taxes help promote the good of society. (I would agree with you!)
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 8:26 PM
I mean the injustice of Catholic adoption agencies being given an ultimatum in the first place. The Catholic Church should have the right to act in its own interests like other institutions.
There are secular adoption agencies who can provide adoptees for homosexuals who want to raise children. I don’t consider it a perfect environment but its legal and acceptable.
It is not reasonable to expect Catholic adoption agencies to go against their religious doctrine especially when there are alternatives for would-be homosexual parents. If you believe that they should toe the line or close then I hope you can understand why I oppose you.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Make up your mind. Either queer sex is okay or it’s an insult.
As far as the incorrect identification, that’s already been handled. All that’s left is queer sex.
So is it an insult or a compliment?
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Since you appear to have no respect for anyone, yourself included, probably due to the fact that no one has any for you, that’s been covered. Enjoy your insecurity.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Source: CIA World Fact Book.
Seems fine to me. In fact, maybe too high. It’s not my business to decide, though.
As for future generations existing, that basically boils down to a tribalism instinct. You want to propagate your culture/genes and babies and children are the means. Nothing wrong with it, as it’s just a biological imperative.
If it’s survival of humanity, I wouldn’t worry. If most religions are right, we all came from a very limited gene pool, so four billion or so humans around right now should be enough to ensure species survival without worrying about homosexuality or voluntarily not having children.
I suspect this population argument is a cover for that tribalism I mentioned earlier. I won’t dissuade anyone from wanting to shape the future in their own image, as we all want to. I just don’t want government forcing me to pay for it.
As for lower taxes promoting the good of society, I’m in agreement with Mrs. Thatcher. There is no society. There is enlightened self-interest. I pay some taxes grudgingly (because I *know* it is inefficient) but willingly so as to fund things which matter to me: highways, parks, police, firemen, etc. Some I despise, such as property tax for scrools, sales tax for scrools, tax for rapid transit, tax for alternative fuels, etc.
The good of society is an interesting philisophical argument, which I’ve used myself, but it breaks down if looked at on an individual basis. The marvel of governance is that it creates a means to take from one individual and give to another in the name of society. It’s almost like Newtonian vs. Quantumn physics: Both are valid, but they can’t be reconciled (yet). I want society, and no society, depending on the case.
There lies the rub and the reason for political parties: To decide who loses and who gains.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 8:44 PM
What a horrible thing to do!!
How can you try to say the Chuch must allow sodomite perverts to adopt innocent children!
Those children will most likely be molested.
They will certainly grow up with massive pychological problems and become criminals or drug addicts or sexual deviants or commit suicide.
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 8:47 PM
Kindly supply the studies linking homosexuality and pedophilia.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Yes, I do think Esthier is a deceiver. It was more of a rhetorical question than anything else and you would have known that had you followed our debate in this thread, and known my history with that person. I’ve called them out before for being a phony. Speaking of contempt, you’ve done well to show yours. I lay out whole litany of contradicting statements made by Esthier the so-called Christian, and the first thing you do is attack me… lol …it is both humorous and sad to see you strain so hard at the gnats then turn around and swallow the camel of Esthier’s deception. Matthew 23:24
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 8:52 PM
You must have me confused with someone else. Plus, you appear unable to respond to a direct inquiry. What is it about you that causes these conditions?
I suspect that it is because you have more in common with the sodomites than simply providing political support and you are internally conflicted about it.
On the other hand, I do not disrespect my body by misusing it so in that regard, I respect myself. But it’s hard to respect someone who refuses to respond on topic.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 8:54 PM
I’m not sure what you mean by tribalism here.
I’m not sure why you conflate the good of society with taxes as I’m not talking about the economic good of society. Thatcher fixed all of Britain’s economic problems and Britain is now a very rich society which is disintegrating in other ways.
As I said upthread, to view a nation as simply millions of people with individual rights is to deny the existence of a societal whole and that way lies madness.
I’m not talking about economics or taxes but society as a spiritual entity. If America and France had the same tax policies and same laws the people who make those nations what they are would still be as different as chalk and cheese.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 8:54 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 17 Next »