^ I admit politicians are full of shit, often.

Why haven't the republicans overturned RvW after they had congress AND a popular president for a good couple of years?

But, it is mostly democrats chipping away at the cruft of incivility that remains in the law regarding the gays.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 7:32 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2008 7:30:45 PM

Quote :

"I admit politicians Democrats are full of shit, often."

Fixed.

Quote :

"Why don't they just openly support it?"

At least the Republicans haven't given a wink and a nod to gays and offered false hope like the Democrats have. And understand, this is not a big issue for me--I don't think government should be involved in allowing or disallowing marriages anyway.

My only real "objection"--and I use that term loosely--to gay marriage is this notion of redefining marriage. Under our current system, I say we just call it civil union and pretty much give gays all the rights and privileges and headaches of marriage.

NB: My position puts me in line with the Democrats.

5/15/2008 7:43:50 PM

Quote :

"My only real "objection"--and I use that term loosely--to gay marriage is this notion of redefining marriage. Under our current system, I say we just call it civil union and pretty much give gays all the rights and privileges and headaches of marriage. "

This is implicitly what Obama is saying with the civil union thing.

I predict if Obama is elected, nationally recognized civil unions for everyone would get implemented.

Quote :

"I admit politicians Democrats are full of shit, often." Fixed."

Haha, you are then implying that Republicans are not full of shit? As things are now, they're more full of shit, because they've had the perfect opportunity to prove that they stand by their "right to life" but instead chose to keep it around, because making an issue out of it is more politically valuable.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 7:47 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2008 7:45:41 PM

Yes, but unlike me, Obama and some others do it with a wink and a nod. "[whispered] Like, we really support gay marriage, you see, but we can't say that out loud because, you know, the squares won't elect us--but if you elect us. . .[candidate winks, winks. . .nods]. That's what I'm talkin' about [candidate nods vigorously, points, and gives a thumbs up. . .winks once more]."

And what have gays gotten from past Democrat presidential candidates on this issue? Nothing.

5/15/2008 7:51:52 PM

Quote :

"Yes, but unlike me, Obama and some others do it with a wink and a nod. "[whispered] Like, we really support gay marriage, you see, but we can't say that out loud because, you know, the squares won't elect us--but if you elect us. . .[candidate winks, winks. . .nods]. That's what I'm talkin' about [candidate nods vigorously, points, and gives a thumbs up. . .winks once more]." "

You would never be able to get elected president with that position then. Do you not understand how politics works? A single individual has to convince most of 300 million people that he can represent them, and you don't do that by taking a hardline on all your policies. You have to show you're willing to compromise or consider other angles.

Quote :

"And what have gays gotten from past Democrat presidential candidates on this issue? Nothing. "

DADT was a baby step for gays, considering its superior to an outright ban, presidentially. I'm surprised that Bush didn't repeal that though, considering using the WoT would have been a perfect opportunity, politically, especially considering the translator issue, and especially considering Cheney's daughter is a lesbo. Locally, democratic politicians have been pushing bills and at least talking about equal rights.

5/15/2008 7:56:52 PM

^ Yeah, it's been great for gays.

Statistics on the number of persons discharged from the military due to homosexuality in the fiscal years since the policy was first introduced (1993):

Year Coast Guard Marines Navy Army Air Force Total
1994 0 36 258 136 187 617
1995 15 69 269 184 235 772
1996 12 60 315 199 284 870
1997 10 78 413 197 309 1,007
1998 14 77 345 312 415 1,163
1999 12 97 314 271 352 1,046
2000 19 104 358 573 177 1,231
2001* — — — — — 1,273
2002* — — — — — 906
2003* — — — — — 787
2004 15 59 177 325 92 668
2005 16 75 177 386 88 742
2006 — — — — — 612
Total 113 655 2,626 2,583 2,139 11,694

* Breakdown of discharges by service branch not available

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

Bill Clinton allowed at least 6,706 service members to be discharged from the military for being gay. That doesn't sound like a very "gay-friendly" policy to me.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 8:12 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 8:01:17 PM

^ before DADT i doubt they tracked discharges related to people being gay, so without something to compare it to, those numbers are meaningless.

socially, though, DADT acknowledged the existence of gays, and being able to show the people we're losing just because of being gay is going to help with showing why we don't need to kick people out just because they're gay. As in, people are no longer OMFG!! a gay!

5/15/2008 8:09:30 PM

^ WTF are you babbling about? Those numbers absolutely are not meaningless.

Quote :

"Statistics on the number of persons discharged from the military due to homosexuality in the fiscal years since the policy was first introduced (1993):"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 8:13 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 8:12:07 PM

My question is, why do gay people make such a big deal about marriage? I say give them all the legal rights of heterosexual couples and be done with it. Atleast, they'll stop whining about how discriminated and surpressed they are.

Honestly, if I could pull the political strings, I'd do away with the concept of "marriage" in the law books completely. What's the point? Just call them all civil unions. Give all couples the same legal rights. Marriage is a religious institution anyways. Seperation of church and state right? Get rid of it. That would completely solve the problem.

Quote :

"I just dont want churches being sued for discrimination when their ceremony gets declined at teh church."

Why would gay couples want to get married in a church? LOL, the irony. That's about as ironic as an atheist couple getting married in a church. Of course, some churches support the gay lifestyle these days, so who am I to say.

5/15/2008 8:13:01 PM

^ if you don't understand basic statistical modeling, there's nothing I can do to help you. You also should refrain from attempting to make arguments based on statistics.

5/15/2008 8:13:29 PM

^ I probably understand statistics better than you do--you always pull this stupid shit. Those are actual numbers of service members that were discharged from the military due to homosexuality under the DADT policy instituted by Bill Clinton--which part don't you understand?

5/15/2008 8:16:32 PM

Why quibble over semantics? Just afford everyone the same legal rights as everyone else and be done with it. It's not the name of the legal contract that matters, it's the meaning.

5/15/2008 8:26:02 PM

Quote :

"before DADT i doubt they tracked discharges related to people being gay, so without something to compare it to, those numbers are meaningless."

That's absolutely true. How many were discharged for homosexuality prior to 1994? It's also telling that discharging gays appears to also very much be a matter of need. Those numbers took a pretty significant downward turn once it became apparent that we needed every soldier we could get on the ground in Iraq.

5/15/2008 8:32:09 PM

^ Nope, not really. (1) We didn't go into Iraq until 2003. The numbers shown ('03-'06) average to about 702 discharges, and as you can see that's not far off any of the individual years listed for that period.

And (2) the issue was whether DADT was helpful to gays or not. I fully understand the point about comparing years prior to DADT implementation, but regardless, one would not expect the numbers of discharges annually to be in the thousands under a policy supposedly designed to help gays in the military.

And, yes, I'm sure some of those discharges were due to service members "telling" that they were gay for one reason or another--maybe some just wanted out of the military. But it certainly was known that many gays were forced out under DADT involving various circumstances.

I just get tired of some acting as if only Republicans can discriminate--it's bullshit. I mean, did anyone even consider that all this talk about racism against Obama in the WV Democratic primary, for example, was concerning, well, Democrats?!

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 8:49 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 8:44:50 PM

Quote :

"How many were discharged for homosexuality prior to 1994"

I don't know if there's a way to tell this, and I would even guess it was probably not that many, considering prior to 94 it they wasnt officially allowed, which would have kept a lot of them out anyway.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 8:49 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2008 8:48:55 PM

^ Well, I can tell you that in the 1980s, if you were found out to be gay, your ass was gone. And they weren't nice about it. And homosexuality is not "officially allowed" now.

But if you're just as gone under DADT, I don't see how that's a victory for gays. I mean, what, they wear a smiley face button when they give you the boot?

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 8:53 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 8:52:45 PM

Quote :

"And homosexuality is not "officially allowed" now."

Technically, it IS officially allowed if you "don't tell," hence "don't ask, don't tell."

Quote :

"But if you're just as gone under DADT, I don't see how that's a victory for gays. I mean, what, they wear a smiley face button when they give you the boot? "

Well, they usually don't give dishonorable discharges under DADT, where as before, it was a criminal offense, and thus often made a dishonorable discharge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302373.html

5/15/2008 9:01:07 PM

Dude. I used to think that level heads would prevail and prevent anything blatantly unConstitutional from occurring, such as a church being sued for refusing to marry a gay couple. Then the Supreme Court said that it was OK to take land from people so that other people could make money off of that land.

5/15/2008 9:34:21 PM

Yeah... that extension of eminent domain is terrifying. Truly one of the worst decisions this court has ever made.

5/15/2008 9:57:24 PM

^^ and ^ I completely agree. And the medical marijuana holding was wrong, too.

5/16/2008 5:07:06 AM

ok if they let states have gay marriage they gotta let states not have abortion...its only fair....cant let those queers win all the time

5/16/2008 5:19:10 AM

teh problem with gay marriage is every argument for it you could also use to justify marrying your sister/brother or parent. and thats all kinds of fucked up

5/16/2008 7:40:03 AM

You mean you can't think of a single thing that differentiates incest from homosexuality?

Not a one thing?

5/16/2008 7:50:35 AM

Quote :

"teh problem with gay marriage is every argument for it you could also use to justify marrying your sister/brother or parent a heterosexual marriage. and thats all kinds of fucked up"

5/16/2008 8:35:40 AM

Someone just pointed out that this ruling came down on the anniversary of Jerry Falwell's death

5/16/2008 8:50:16 AM

Quote :

"teh problem with gay marriage is every argument for it you could also use to justify marrying your sister/brother or parent. and thats all kinds of fucked up"

That slippery slope argument just doesn't work. The only reason the incest taboo exists is because it has been shown that incest increases the chance of defective progeny. That's it, that's all. If reproduction were not possible between the two related parties I see little reason why you shouldn't be able to marry a relative. The fact is that states are not even consistent about this, in some states it has to be 2nd cousins, in some 3rd, in some it's even legal to marry your first cousin if both parties are sterile. In fact, the chance of genetic birth defects only go from about 3-4% in non-cousin marriages to 4-7% in 1st cousin marriages.

The basic argument against incestuous marriage boils down to, "it's gross." Which of course is all a matter of subjectivity and has little historical backing.

That said, it's still pretty f-ed up.

5/16/2008 8:51:07 AM

First cousin marriage is very common everywhere but the US.

5/16/2008 8:55:42 AM

It's legal in Canada, most of Europe, and about half of the US. The rules against which relatives you can and can't marry vary pretty wildly and with little scientific backing.

If you really want to weed out genetic issues you do genetic screening or you advocate in-vitro fertilization with screened genetic material, but then you open up a whole different can of worms.

5/16/2008 9:17:57 AM

In the bush villages of Alaska i have heard pretty much anything goes.

5/16/2008 10:32:40 AM

I don't really care about the issue of gay marriage one way or the other, but I do worry a little bit about it coming about through the courts instead of through the legislature or another proposition. If gay marriage is legalized through legislature or another proposition, then it's most likely because the public discourse on the issue has gotten to the point where it's accepted by general society. If its the courts that bring it about instead, it prematurely kills that discussion and creates messes like what we currently have with abortion. It only further politicizes the judicial system as well, creating these sorts of stupid battles in Congress over judicial nominations where people care more about what they think a judge is going to vote for on one or two specific issues instead of looking at the soundness of their overall judicial philosophy.

5/16/2008 2:34:55 PM

Well, it sort of did come about through legislation. Legislature passed a law that said it was illegal, the supreme court said the law violated the California State Constitution. It's not like they couldn't still make it illegal, it would just require an amendment to the state constitution.

That's how it's supposed to work, the judiciary is supposed to act as a check on the legislature. Now, you can argue about how they interpret the constitution (whether state of US), but in my opinion the problem is not "activist judges" it's that we have an overly active legislature. How can we possibly need this many laws?

5/16/2008 2:41:58 PM

not to get drastic or anything, but brown v board of education wasn't exactly popular in much of the country when it happened.

5/16/2008 2:43:55 PM

The bill for gay marriage passed twice through the California legislature only to be vetoed by Arnold who said it should be decided in the courts.

5/16/2008 3:00:51 PM

OK. let them queers have marriage. BUT DON'T LET EM HAVE GAY DIVORCE!!! DIVORCE IS A HOLY INSTITUTION!!!

5/16/2008 4:22:59 PM

Quote :

"If gay marriage is legalized through legislature or another proposition, then it's most likely because the public discourse on the issue has gotten to the point where it's accepted by general society."

The California legislature _did_ pass gay marriage, twice. And Arnold vetoed it, twice, on the premise that "the people" already said they don't like it because of a proposition passed eight years ago. Now that the court has struck down the ban in broad terms, Arnold says he won't fight the issue further.

To wit: we don't presently live in a direct democracy, and a _Republican_ (or any) governor shouldn't be using his veto power to claim that a ballot referendum is somehow more legitimate than the work of a duly-elected legislature. And his decision to not fight further, in that light, is puzzling, since surely the court is less democratic than either the legislature or a referendum.

But that's how Arnold works. And, for that matter, the California political system which embodies the will of various interested parties through various means; none of which are particularly principled. Your point would be valid if we were talking about a political system that is remotely sane.

I'd agree that the California courts did act unilaterally and with a heavy hand, and that is not ideal from a political perspective. But, frankly, I think this is an issue of civil rights and the courts _should_ deal with it. The fundamental injustice is that by denying gays same-sex marriage, they cannot reasonably enjoy the privilege of marriage. That violates, in the most obvious ways, the Fourteenth Amendment. And, as the California Supreme Court has pointed out, any number of equal protection clauses in our state constitution.

The folks aligned against gay marriage, frankly, are simply people who do not fundamentally believe in the basic principles of an open society. No institution -- be it the legislature, be it the courts, be it the ballot -- should allow their views to stand for very long.

5/16/2008 8:56:37 PM

^ Um. . .yeah--you made sure to list Republicans by name there. Don't forget these guys--you know, Democrats:

Quote :

"So, why does the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democrats--Barack Obama--not support gay marriage? Why didn't John Kerry? Why didn't Al Gore? Why didn't Bill Clinton? And so on."

5/17/2008 4:03:42 AM

Quote :

"we don't presently live in a direct democracy, and a _Republican_ (or any) governor shouldn't be using his veto power to claim that a ballot referendum is somehow more legitimate than the work of a duly-elected legislature."

ummm, wouldn't a ballot referendum be more legitimate than a legislative vote from the perspective of more accurately representing the public opinion? I'm just saying...

5/17/2008 8:50:17 PM

I disagree with changing the tax code based on ones maritual status in general. I think everyone should be taxed at the same rate. I also disagree with gay marriage. Marriage has been a sacred bond between a man and a woman for centuries (defined on religious principles also) and we are going to let the government basically rewrite everything. This again is the government telling us what is acceptable and what is not. Government should have no say in this.

If gay couples want to form a union, fine....but dont call it marriage; dont redefine a worldwide sanctuary. And remove all tax code regulations that involve marriage, the government has no business is religious affairs such as this.

5/17/2008 9:48:22 PM

^ if we remove all tax related items pertaining to marriage, then gays will be able to "get married" to their hearts content. Not calling the "union" marriage is just bull crap.

If marriage was defined to be a sacred bond between a man and a woman in your religion, then... okay. What the fuck do I care?

5/17/2008 11:02:01 PM

Quote :

"If marriage was defined to be a sacred bond between a man and a woman in your religion, then... okay. What the fuck do I care? "

Exactly. A religious person doesn't have the right to tell a gay person that their union is not a marriage, if the gay couple wants to call it a marriage.

And just be sheer convention, even if the law changed all marriages to unions, people would still call them marriages, because its idiotic to try to force common lexicons to change because your religion finds it distasteful.

5/17/2008 11:13:41 PM

rinse, repeat

5/18/2008 3:48:07 AM

Quote :

"Exactly. A religious person doesn't have the right to tell a gay person that their union is not a marriage, if the gay couple wants to call it a marriage."

Marriage, where a man a woman become one, was created centuries ago has always been a religious experience.....not by my religion....but by many religions.

The government has no right to define or tax differently individuals based on ones maritual status. I think the whole "by the power vested in me by the state of ______" is absolutely absurd as well. How you people do not see this is beyond me....The government should have no hand in the marriage of any individuals...man and woman or man and man...

5/18/2008 1:39:31 PM

Quote :

"Marriage, where a man a woman become one, was created centuries ago has always been a religious experience.....not by my religion....but by many religions."

Marriage has always been a religious experience? Are you kidding me? Do you think that areligious people don't get married? Do you think that every society in the history of the world has associated religion with marriage? Do you really think you have any idea what you're talking about?

5/18/2008 1:53:00 PM

Marriage is intended to reduce competition for females.

It wasn't inherently a religious act though it has eventually become one.

5/18/2008 2:24:39 PM

Quote :

"Atleast, they'll stop whining about how discriminated and surpressed they are."

Unlikely.

Quote :

"Marriage is intended to reduce competition for females."

Something like that, yes. I'd say it was meant to solidify control over the means of reproduction. It's a patriarchal institution than needs to go. Extending marriage to same-sex couples is better than nothing, I guess, but no respectable end goal.

5/18/2008 2:46:25 PM

Quote :

"Marriage has been a sacred bond between a man and a woman for centuries (defined on religious principles also) and we are going to let the government basically rewrite everything."

Well, if you can point out the religious principles behind:

* no-fault divorce
* alimony (of numerous forms)
* "shotgun" weddings (a la Las Vegas) that last a day (a la Britney Spears)
* weddings that don't involve any religious authority whatsoever

etc., etc. All of which are allowed and common, even, under the current regime.

Please, don't be so goddamned ignorant. The issue of same-sex marriage is about _civil_ marriage, not religious marriage. Any church can retain its sacrament simply by practicing marriage as it sees fit. If your particular institution needs the government to legitimize its sacraments, then it has serious problems.

5/18/2008 6:16:59 PM

Quote :

"Um. . .yeah--you made sure to list Republicans by name there. Don't forget these guys--you know, Democrats"

I don't really see what my post had to do with Republican vs. Democrat. I named Arnold because he's the governor of this state, not because he's a Republican. Do you see the connection there? California? California Supreme Court? California Legislature? California Governor? Hmmmmmm?

5/18/2008 6:20:09 PM

Quote :

"ummm, wouldn't a ballot referendum be more legitimate than a legislative vote from the perspective of more accurately representing the public opinion?"

Yes, but as at least one enlightened soul has pointed out to me here, the job of government isn't always to linearly represent the public opinion but to actually, you know, govern.

I think this is especially true where civil rights are concerned. If you had a public referendum of Alabamans during the 1960s, I somehow think integration wouldn't have passed muster.

Arnold does, in fact, claim the title of Republican governor of California -- a fact I pointed out not to highlight his opposition, but the irony of the name itself. The republican form of government is about delegation of authority. Sometimes delegation is painful, especially when the majority is wrong, but a politician with any balls (or common sense) should just do what's right. That's called being a statesman. And I think he's made it pretty clear in his reaction to the courts that this isn't a "wedge" issue for him.

(in full disclosure, I actually did vote for Arnold over whatever limp-wristy bat-shit Democrat ran against him last cycle. Gay marriage is my only regret, honestly)

5/18/2008 6:27:41 PM

^^ Understood. I simply pointed out the following:

Quote :

"Um. . .yeah--you made sure to list Republicans by name there. Don't forget these guys--you know, Democrats."

Because--in the context of the larger discussion--these questions remained unanswered by anyone here or elsewhere:

Quote :

"So, why does the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democrats--Barack Obama--not support gay marriage? Why didn't John Kerry? Why didn't Al Gore? Why didn't Bill Clinton? And so on."

5/19/2008 5:34:42 AM

The question HAS already been answered.

Democrats do not openly support gay marriage because it would be political suicide. John McCain might want to legalize the hunting of "gooks", but that doesn't mean he's going to say so.

5/19/2008 11:37:20 AM