Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal


01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Get it out of the way early.

Mind you, it is ironic that the gay marriage bill is being opposed as a freedom of religion issue.

While a church should never be forced to perform a ceremony that they don't believe in, urging a law to be enacted to prevent OTHER churches from making that decision for themselves is the real kicker here.

Should the Catholic church be forced to make women priests because Methodists allow women to become ministers? Should Baptists be forced to perform their baptisms in the same fashion as Episcopalians? Should they be forced to NOT perform baptisms at all, because Jews don't have the ceremony? Should Christians be forced to perform a bris, because Jews do?

So, why in the heck, should Unitarians or whoever else wants to perform marriages for gay and lesbian couples be forced to conform to a standard for other congregations?

I fully support the idea that congregations don't want to perform services for some folks. That is their right--if they believe that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman, or people only of the same faith, then that is their right, and unless they're hurting people in the aisles against their will, freedom of religion means, that the gub'ment stays out of their shiat.

But likewise, other congregations need to keep their noses out of other peoples' shiat as well. That the LDS wants to turn criticism of their opposition to OTHER people performing marriages, and make it public that THEY THEMSELVES want to determine what is proper is especially funny.

Mind you, I think that with only a bit of thought and application of property distribution after a divorce by a judge, as well as equal standards for child support and alimony awards, that polygamy be legalized. For the same reason. If the legal protections are equal for polys as for couples, then the only real opposition is then religious, and then drive on. None of your business if folks want to marry four or five women, so long as everyone is a consenting adult, drive on. And they all have the same legal protection. Drive on.

Of course, with equal legal protection, I suspect that polygamy, even for Muslim and LDS would NOT be an attractive option. Not with equal legal protection--wealthy men would fairly quickly realize that child support from divorced wives could eat at their assets very fast, especially if those women could divorce easily and with full protection.

Mind you, if you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one. It's as simple as that. And not all congregations are as united a front as some, so it plays further into a test for each congregation to make the decision to perform a ceremony for gay or lesbian couples. It isn't a danger to "family values" unless you happen to also be campaigning for an end to divorce as well--and again, that is up to the churches to determine for themselves, not for everyone else.

FTFA: Freedom of religion is at risk

Extremely unlikely. One cannot force a Catholic church (or any other church for that matter) into performing any ceremonies for gays or lesbians for much the same reason they cannot be forced to marry inter-faith couples.

Seriously, let's just stop all this nonsense. Change the name of the license issued by the government to a "Union License" or something, make THAT the binding legal authority regarding property and children and tell the churches to STFU and GTFO of the whole thing. If you want a religious ceremony get your government document and then go see your invisible sky wizard representative.

Cuz marriage is now and has always been a legal contract regarding property.^* The only reason religion is involved is those wonderful years when they were the only institution capable of keeping records for more than one regime.

*Admittedly, for most of human history that property was the woman.

I like the idea of striking marriage from government entirely. Make ALL unions that are recognized by the state into "civil unions." Let the churches worry about the marriages and marry whomever they wish - it just won't get any kind of government sanction until they sign the civil union papers at City Hall, which will be made available to everyone.

Skail: I like the idea of striking marriage from government entirely. Make ALL unions that are recognized by the state into "civil unions." Let the churches worry about the marriages and marry whomever they wish - it just won't get any kind of government sanction until they sign the civil union papers at City Hall, which will be made available to everyone.

That is a good idea. Will never happen, but still..

darkyn: FTFA: Freedom of religion is at risk

Extremely unlikely. One cannot force a Catholic church (or any other church for that matter) into performing any ceremonies for gays or lesbians for much the same reason they cannot be forced to marry inter-faith couples.

Butbut...I got a letter the other day that said gays want to ban the Bible and use all the leftover Bibles to beat newborn babies to death! Why would a political mass-mailing list lie to me?!

"...marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman."

I think this is precisely why the LDS is fighting Prop 8. They know the argument that "changing the definition of marriage to include gays will open the door to changing the definition of marriage to include 3 wives" and don't want to publicly align themselves with their polygamist past.

FTFA: "I don't think the church ever compromised on its sense that marriage is the institution through which families are formed and people are saved," says Sarah Barringer Gordon, a scholar of the law of church and state who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. Comparing polygamy to gay marriage, she says, "in many church members' eyes is comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare gay marriage to polygamy."

So.

Evangelical Protestants: Same-sex marriage will lead to polygymy.

LDS Church: Same-sex marriage can't be compared to polygymy.

Interesting. VERY interesting.

Mind you, I say that no matter how the vote turns out on Proposition 8, the people of California will be the winners. This initiative gives the voters the opportunity to decide the gay marriage issue for themselves, rather than having arrogant, activist judges decide the issue for them, whether the people like it or not.

SkinnyHead: Mind you, I say that no matter how the vote turns out on Proposition 8, the people of California will be the winners. This initiative gives the voters the opportunity to decide the gay marriage issue for themselves, rather than having arrogant, activist judges decide the issue for them, whether the people like it or not.

The simplest purpose of a Judge is to interpret the law. You, therefore, basically cannot be an "activist" judge. The judges in California interpreted the law relative to the Californian constitution. It's not activism- it's their job.

SkinnyHead: Mind you, I say that no matter how the vote turns out on Proposition 8, the people of California will be the winners. This initiative gives the voters the opportunity to decide the gay marriage issue for themselves, rather than having arrogant, activist judges decide the issue for them, whether the people like it or not.

Just like they did in the civil rights movement.

Wait a minute...

SkinnyHead: Mind you, I say that no matter how the vote turns out on Proposition 8, the people of California will be the winners. This initiative gives the voters the opportunity to decide the gay marriage issue for themselves, rather than having arrogant, activist judges decide the issue for them, whether the people like it or not.

Speaking of arrogance, how fkn arrogant is it for a group to alter the constitution to institutionalize inequality, because their tiny little religious sect is morally offended? And to use fear and misinformation to scare people into supporting it?

How very christian of them!

SkinnyHead: rather than having arrogant, activist judges decide the issue for them, whether the people like it or not.

I gather you've been watching the pro-8 commercials. How nice that it fits comfortably into your usual screed about "activist judges." Too bad, though, that you don't know what you're talking about, asshat.

sloppy shoes: The simplest purpose of a Judge is to interpret the law. You, therefore, basically cannot be an "activist" judge. The judges in California interpreted the law relative to the Californian constitution. It's not activism- it's their job.

An activist judge is someone who wants to bring about a certain result, and then "interprets" the law to make it so. Without judicial restraint, the power to interpret can be abused to rewrite the constitution to make it mean whatever the activist judge wants it to mean. That's like having no constitution at all. That's not what a judge is supposed to do.

Kome: You have about as much knowledge of what a judge's job is as a fish does of a bicycle.

That's not fair. A fish knows enough to STFU and stay away from a bicycle.

SkinnyHead: An activist judge is someone who wants to bring about a certain result, and then "interprets" the law to make it so. Without judicial restraint, the power to interpret can be abused to rewrite the constitution to make it mean whatever the activist judge wants it to mean.

Oh - so like Thomas and Scalia?

The mormons are just being pragmatic. It is hard to populate your own planet in your next life if you are a same sex couple.

Skail: I like the idea of striking marriage from government entirely. Make ALL unions that are recognized by the state into "civil unions." Let the churches worry about the marriages and marry whomever they wish - it just won't get any kind of government sanction until they sign the civil union papers at City Hall, which will be made available to everyone.

I hope you like the idea of the right wing telling everyone the left is trying to invalidate their marriage, because that is what the straw man will be.

Any of you farkers every read this?

/Very depressing look and polygymy in America.

SkinnyHead: An activist judge is someone who wants to bring about a certain result, and then "interprets" the law to make it so.

At the time of the SCOTUS decision on Virginia v. Loving, the majority of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage.

Sucks to be you.

ilambiquated



To be fair, FLDS is a whole 'nother realm of crazy than the normal mo mos

Benq: normal mo mos

I went to an LDS baby funeral two weeks ago. If the stuff they told the parents there is "normal," fark me.

So far as LDS marriage goes, subby means that it's between a man and a woman, and between the same man and another woman, etc. There is far less of the hot `between a man and a woman and a woman' thing going on than you'd hope for.

Now an LSD marriage is where the bride walks three feet off the ground in the park and your friend gets shipped off to Vietnam instead of you. If I recall correctly.

orrinbloquy: SkinnyHead: An activist judge is someone who wants to bring about a certain result, and then "interprets" the law to make it so.

At the time of the SCOTUS decision on Virginia v. Loving, the majority of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage.

Sucks to be you.

B-but that was a totally different situation! Black people couldn't choose to be black, but homos can choose to be straight.

/getting that out of the way

orrinbloquy: Benq: normal mo mos

I went to an LDS baby funeral two weeks ago. If the stuff they told the parents there is "normal," fark me.

exactly, so just imagine how crazy FLDS is. when i say 'normal' i mean, way less bat shiz crazy.

so, my argument is that they are 'normal' in relation to their fundie third cousins.

does this mean i get to fark you?

sloppy shoes: SkinnyHead: Mind you, I say that no matter how the vote turns out on Proposition 8, the people of California will be the winners. This initiative gives the voters the opportunity to decide the gay marriage issue for themselves, rather than having arrogant, activist judges decide the issue for them, whether the people like it or not.

The simplest purpose of a Judge is to interpret the law. You, therefore, basically cannot be an "activist" judge. The judges in California interpreted the law relative to the Californian constitution. It's not activism- it's their job.

This law passing also gives those arrogant, activist SCOTUS justices the opportunity to banninate. So, not really.

ilambiquated: Any of you farkers every read this?

/Very depressing look and polygymy in America.

Nope, but this one was fun:

orrinbloquy: At the time of the SCOTUS decision on Virginia v. Loving, the majority of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage.

How do you know? Did the American people get a chance to vote on that issue?

And binding US Supreme Court authority rejects the analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage. That's why state bans on gay marriage don't violate the federal equal protection clause. So that's definitely a losing argument.

I don't really like the fact that this non-Christian cult is forcing their morality on the state of California. These are the same batshiat-insane folks who think that God resides on a planet called Kolob, their secret undergarments protect them from evil, and if they lead a "moral" life, they will each become gods of their own planet after death. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

These Mormon morons actually believe the word of a demonstratable con man, Joseph Smith, and his fellow founders were demonstratable racists and polygamists.

Their doctrine held that black people bore the mark of Cain. They "officially" dropped this view in 1979, but I know plenty of Mormons who still believe it. They also believe that polygamy will one day return--we're just in a temporary "down period."

is not amused

SkinnyHead - Mind you, I say that no matter how the vote turns out on Proposition 8, the people of California will be the winners. This initiative gives the voters the opportunity to decide the gay marriage issue for themselves, rather than having arrogant, activist judges decide the issue for them, whether the people like it or not.


You got that right, Bubba... I cain't wait till Proposition 9, so's we kin vote to make the nigras chattel agin!!!

Next election cycle, I'm starting an initiative to create a state constitutional amendment banning the practice of Mormonism in California.

SkinnyHead: An activist judge is someone who wants to bring about a certain result, and then "interprets" the law to make it so. Without judicial restraint, the power to interpret can be abused to rewrite the constitution to make it mean whatever the activist judge wants it to mean. That's like having no constitution at all. That's not what a judge is supposed to do.

Ahh, I see...so in fact, an activist judge is someone who interprets the law in a manner you disagree with. Then you just argue it away by claiming (without proof) that they just wanted that interpretation to come about anyway, and it is therefore invalid and activist. Yes...it's so simple...and farking stupid.

SkinnyHead: orrinbloquy: At the time of the SCOTUS decision on Virginia v. Loving, the majority of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage.

How do you know? Did the American people get a chance to vote on that issue?

And binding US Supreme Court authority rejects the analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage. That's why state bans on gay marriage don't violate the federal equal protection clause. So that's definitely a losing argument.

In a society that values liberty if a situation arises in which reasonable people can reasonably differ about what should be done, the government should allow people to make their own choices. Simple as that. If you value liberty you must support the right of people to choose to get married, or you must be a hypocrite.

SkinnyHead: And binding US Supreme Court authority rejects the analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage.

You can't decry "judicial activism" on this issue without indicating that SCOTUS had no authority to strike down miscegenation laws. Own it.

LordJiro - orrinbloquy: SkinnyHead: An activist judge is someone who wants to bring about a certain result, and then "interprets" the law to make it so.

At the time of the SCOTUS decision on Virginia v. Loving, the majority of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage.

Sucks to be you.

B-but that was a totally different situation! Black people couldn't choose to be black, but homos can choose to be straight.

/getting that out of the way


But they can choose who they partner with, and they... along with decent white folk, should choose their own kind. End this perverted miscegenation!!!

Religious institutions need to stay out of law making or farking pay taxes. Asshats.

LordJiro: B-but that was a totally different situation! Black people couldn't choose to be black, but homos can choose to be straight.

That's the way the Ninth Circuit ruled:

"Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic; it is behavioral and hence is fundamentally different from traits such as race, gender, or alienage, which define already existing suspect and quasi-suspect classes." High Tech Gays v. Def. Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1990).

They are only 'activist' judges if they interpret the law contrary to your wishes.

sloppy shoes: The simplest purpose of a Judge is to interpret the law. You, therefore, basically cannot be an "activist" judge. The judges in California interpreted the law relative to the Californian constitution. It's not activism- it's their job.

If my side wins, it's "interpreting the law". If the other side wins, it's "judicial activism".

I'm so glad I broke from that church as soon as I was old enough to think for myself.

I knew a lot of nice Mormons as a kid, but their kindness and generosity can't make up for stupidity like this. It's freaky to think of how many of those people I have fond memories of would show their fangs if I told them there's nothing wrong with somebody being gay.

When a new revelation ended the practice, "I think the majority were greatly relieved and glad to get back into the mainstream of Western civilization," Oaks says

I love revelation just for the pure lunacy of it all, but Mormon revelation is, like Michael said about Todd Packer's milestone positioning, icing on the cake. Hey I can read God's mind through my magic hat!!!1! eleventy!

Right here in River City an LDS family cashed in their 401k of $50,000 to support Prop 8. I can think of a ton of snarky comments about this, but... FAIL trumps them all.

LDS Church: The IRS called and they'd like to have a word.

Just to inject something else into the thread--from a redlit link.
San Diego Mayor, Jerry Sanders (R) in a surprisingly touching clip.

As a Conservative who supports gay marriage, I took the time to write Mayor Sanders' office to tell him that I was proud of his action, and it is exactly the sort of thing that our party needs.

The politics of diviseness is dangerous. And it frightens me to the core that people are willing to vote for legislation to restrict civil rights.

Beautifully played, subby.

Rights are rights, everybody. The Constitution may just be a farking piece of paper, but it's the farking piece of paper we base our country's laws on, and it pretty much says "as long as you're not infringing on other people's rights, you're within your rights."

Legal precedents don't farking matter, if you ask me. Two dudes getting married isn't going to take away from any of my rights or anybody else's.

Piss on the "EW DAT IS SO ICKYYYYY" crowd, they're worse than 5-year-olds.

From yesterday's sports thread, I'd like to once again thank Steve Young for breaking with his church and donating 37K to fight Prop 8.

Also, I really don't give a fark what anyone wants to call it, I just want the same civil rights offered to straight couples. I'd be more than happy to apply for a ball n chain lisc., a social life death lisc, whatever.

/god i hope the SO doesn't see this..
// kidding I swear honey

hubiestubert: The politics of divisiveness is dangerous. And it frightens me to the core that people are willing to vote for legislation to restrict civil rights.

I am tired of gay rights always being used as a wedge issue for the right wing to gain votes. The gay community is the whipping post of the Social conservatives.

SkinnyHead: sloppy shoes: The simplest purpose of a Judge is to interpret the law. You, therefore, basically cannot be an "activist" judge. The judges in California interpreted the law relative to the Californian constitution. It's not activism- it's their job.

An activist judge is someone who wants to bring about a certain result, and then "interprets" the law to make it so. Without judicial restraint, the power to interpret can be abused to rewrite the constitution to make it mean whatever the activist judge wants it to mean. That's like having no constitution at all. That's not what a judge is supposed to do.

You had no problem yesterday with an activist judge expanding an interpretation of the First Amendment as you perceived it in regards to Sarah Palin's right to a free press being nice to her.

You're a twerp.