There’s a Henny Youngman joke in there somewhere.

You’d be spot on correct – if this were about divorce instead of marriage.

:P

Oh BTW, if marriage (in any respect, not simply outside of race) is now a right for heterosexuals, then give me a wife, kthxplz.

Ryan Gandy on November 21, 2008 at 9:31 PM

There’s a Henny Youngman joke in there somewhere. You have a right to marry but have to supply the girl.

I was only addressing your assertion about heterosexual marriage. I actually haven’t anywhere made a case that the Supreme Court would take Loving as precedent and easily decide that there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage. They might. I hope they punt on the issue for a while and let the states work it out.

So? They also wrote that laws defining marriage as between couples of opposite sexes do not violate the Constitution.

Try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

http://www.alliancealert.org/2005/20050119.pdf

http://www.lmaw.org/freedom/docs/MN%20Baker%20v%20Nelson.pdf

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), upon which petitioners additionally rely, does not militate against this conclusion. Virginia’s antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination. As Mr. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court (388 U.S. 12, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1018):

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.

Don’t try to equivocate a Supreme Court case dealing with race mixing, or black struggles for civil rights, with this. Just DON’T.

Ryan Gandy on November 21, 2008 at 8:16 PM

I was addressing your contention that marriage is not considered a right for heterosexuals since the Supreme Court, at least, has written otherwise.

Don’t try to equivocate a Supreme Court case dealing with race mixing, or black struggles for civil rights, with this. Just DON’T.

Marriage. Is. Not. A. Right.

Not for heterosexuals, nor for homosexuals.

Ryan Gandy on November 21, 2008 at 7:10 PM

SCOTUS has described marriage as “one of the basic civil rights of man” and asserted that “the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Do I need to spell it out for you?

Marriage. Is. Not. A. Right.

Not for heterosexuals, nor for homosexuals.

I find it quite ironic that the phrase “mob rule” is used to describe anti-prop 8 demonstrators, when in actual fact an example of mob rule is the voting on prop 8 itself.

In a democratic republic, the “will of the people” is not absolute. The will of the people does not have the right to strip minorities of rights.

52% of the population voted to overrule part of the Californian constitution, when a big part of a constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Which is why in CA major changes to the CA Constitution require a two-thirds vote.

There’s no concrete reason to be against gay marriage. Will your marriage crumble to pieces just because two guys down the street get married to each other? No. So how does this affect straight people? Not at all.

Y-not on November 21, 2008 at 2:42 PM

One of the purer forms of jealousy I’ve seen of late.

Malkin jumped the shark a long time ago. Not that bright and certainly not nearly as attractive as some of you stalkers think she is. Sort of a female version of Sam Cassell if you want to know the truth. Lightweight.

dakine on November 21, 2008 at 1:45 AM

What does your opinion about Michelle Malkin’s intelligence and appearance have to do with this thread?

We can teach tolerance, we can teach acceptance of outside the norm fellow humans

How about teaching acceptance and tolerance in general terms?! That’s what we teach our child. An 8-year old doesn’t need to know the lurid details, regardless of what some activist groups think.

Apparently, some homosexuals are also “born that way”

There is no scientific evidence to back that up, btw.

Of course, neither am I interested in giving them societal approval – but that’s another conversation.

Which is what they really want; forget all the “marriage” and “equality” talk.

They need that approval because if they can get enough people to believe that their behavior is “natural and normal”, they just might start believing it themselves.

That said, homosexuality is a fact among humans and also to some degree among higher primates at least. So teaching acceptance is ok, but teaching homosexuality as “normal” is very wrong. Particulary to pre-pubescents. I can find no compelling arguement in teaching a seven year old that two men having anal sex, or two women using phallic objects on each other is “normal” for the species.
We can teach tolerance, we can teach acceptance of outside the norm fellow humans, we should not teach that all behaviors or proclivities are “normal”.
My Down’s Syndrome brother-in-law is certainly not a “normal” person. He was born that way, can’t help what he is. Apparently, some homosexuals are also “born that way” and can’t help being a biological dead end. (Science is fast changing this.)
My point, again, is tolerance and acceptence, but I see no reason to confuse children about how babies are made prior to the childs hormonal awakening. If, upon puberty, my child were to exhibit homosexual tendencies, I would hope that I am big enough to support my child and could help to explain both physical and biological sexuality.
I would rather not have the State teaching homosexuality as a potentially optional lifestyle, but as a “normal abnormality” of a percentage of our population.

Back on topic, no to homo marriage (no such thing), yes to equal legal rights for homo couples as pertains to property, POA’s, wills, etc.

I applaud your views, but I sense you missed my point. I am not a novice in the issue. I have a gay sister and brother and am the product of growing up in 60′s and as one of the original ‘hippies’ before the label chosen by the media.

The issue of “same sex marriage” is another means of the gay community to force others to accept their lifestyle and to ‘give’ them the same standing as a heterosexual union, which they already have when you closely examine the issue with a big picture perspective.

First, I do not see anything a gay couple is not entitled to that the a married couple are afforded. If there is one it is an issue for the couple to overcome with the person, or organization that is not affording them. Second, is the fact that the gay community feel that their lifestyle must be accepted but do not understand that you cannot legislate morality.

SC.Charlie on November 20, 2008 at 10:12 PM

Seriously, SC Charlie, you’re being an idiot.

What’s next, posting corroborative testimony from damnchristianbreedres.com?

Look, no one who has even the least little bit of interest in fairness is going to take seriously anything from that website.

I mean, do you seriously think that there isn’t the least little bit of possible self-serving (or even out and out lying) in posting anti-Christian information from a site called “holy bullies”?

I guess I should start posting information from homosexualswillrotinhell.org?

(And no, I have no idea whether that domain exists or not – I hope not.)

Not attacking that 69-year-old woman but there is more to the story

The story of Phyllis Burgess, the 69-year-old woman who had a confrontation with a crowd of anti-Proposition 8 folks is making its way through the blogsphere.

Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich referenced it in their television interviews and now Michelle Malkin is talking about it in her syndicated column:

In Palm Springs, a videographer filmed unhinged anti-Prop. 8 marchers who yanked a large cross from the hands of 69-year-old Phyllis Burgess and stomped on it.

That behavior was uncalled for but there is more to the story than a lot of people are willing to tell. I found the following on Mike Tidmus’s site. He investigated the incident after seeing it on P. LaBarbera’s site:

Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, renown gay porn aficionado, and ersatz critic of the queer equality movement, recently posted an article about an incident at an otherwise peaceful, Palm Springs candlelight vigil on the Friday following the passage of Proposition 8.

From Americans for Truth about Homosexuality:

Dear Readers, here’s more evidence that homo-fascism is coming out of the closet following the triumph of Proposition 8, which simply restores the traditional definition of marriage in California. “Gay” activists now rail against ANY opposition to their agenda as “hateful.” Watch this video from Palm Springs, California — a notorious homosexual Mecca. Note the anchorman’s politically correct summation, as if the “hate” on the video really came from “both sides”! Beneath the video is more background on this latest “gay” outrage; note that a commercial precedes the online video news story.

As for the rest of the story/article (as Paul Harvey says) and links you can go to http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/

You don’t think that there are holy bullies on the issue of gay rights? …

“Holy” bullies? Sounds either like an oxymoron or a drama-queen assessment.

And look – I’m willing to meet you half way in a conversation…

…but directing me to a gay website called “holy bullies” in order to glean “the other side of the story” is pushing it way too far.

If you’re actually interested in making a valid point – post links to sites that are a little less likely to “mold” the story to a preconceived point of view.

I mean, seriously, what’s next – being pointed to the opposing viewpoint at godhatesf*gs?

/shakes head and rolls eyes

I mean, with a name like that they HAVE to be honest and not self-serving, right??

/sarc & eyeroll

Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 9:04 PM

You don’t think that there are holy bullies on the issue of gay rights? ……. to use your phrase /sacr & eyeroll. Go to the website and read, what’s to lose? If the site doesn’t give enough substantiation to his position for you, so be it.

/sarc & eyeroll

Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 9:04 PM

LOL!