Will this have an effect on Election 2006?

[Frances Bavier]

It is no mystery why Haggard enjoyed access to the White House. The man was elected President of an organization of 30 million largely conservative Americans. This White House took his calls just as any other White House would have done when the leader of such a large constituency called. No doubt, Haggard's successor will enjoy the same consideration. as he or she should.

 

This is especially true as long as intentionally vague issues such as "Family Values" and red herring issues such as gay marriage will secure as many of those 30 million votes as possible.

 

Meanwhile, we struggle on in Iraq.

 

 

Frances

[Landshark]

This is especially true as long as intentionally vague issues such as "Family Values" and red herring issues such as gay marriage will secure as many of those 30 million votes as possible.

 

Meanwhile, we struggle on in Iraq.

 

 

Frances

Gay marriage may be a red herring to you, but it is not to tens of millions of Americans. Even less a red herring is the continuing trend of liberal judges thwarting the will of the majority to decide overturn legislation that is clearly constitutional. Court rulings such as those in Massachussetts and New Jersey are why this issue came to the forefront of American politics.

[Frances Bavier]

Gay marriage may be a red herring to you, but it is not to tens of millions of Americans. Even less a red herring is the continuing trend of liberal judges thwarting the will of the majority to decide overturn legislation that is clearly constitutional. Court rulings such as those in Massachussetts and New Jersey are why this issue came to the forefront of American politics.

 

I cannot tell you how happy I am to know that within another twenty to thirty years, the issue of gay marriage will be an afterthought. My only regret is that at my age, it will happen just at the end of my lifetime.

 

Eventually, this will force the arch conservatives to find another group to persecute and another wedge issue to use to distract the voters of this country from items such as the environment, the economy, foreign policy, etc.

 

To quote the Edwin Hawkins' Singers - "Oh Happy Day".

 

 

Frances

[Landshark]

I cannot tell you how happy I am to know that within another twenty to thirty years, the issue of gay marriage will be an afterthought. My only regret is that at my age, it will happen just at the end of my lifetime.

 

Eventually, this will force the arch conservatives to find another group to persecute and another wedge issue to use to distract the voters of this country from items such as the environment, the economy, foreign policy, etc.

 

To quote the Edwin Hawkins' Singers - "Oh Happy Day".

 

 

Frances

I know that this is just a minor fact and facts are really inconvenient things some times - but gay activists are responsible for foisting the gay marriage issue onto the front burner of American politics. Please recall that two events sparked the controversy. The former mayor of San Francisco decided to ignore state law and began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The second event was the Mass. Supreme Court ruling in Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health. (Goodridge was not a heterosexual conservative Christian woman).

 

Now, we have the Kerrigan & Mock v. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health ruling from New Jersey. As with the Mass. case, the plaintiffs in the NJ case were gays and lesbians. The Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) represented plaintiffs in both cases.

 

The attempts by liberals to represent the gay marriage issue as something that conservative WASPs concocted as a campaign issue is ridiculous. The political will to redefine marriage through state legislatures simply is not there, so liberals did what liberals do - they ran to liberal judges to impose their view of morality on the rest of us.

[Covercorner]

Gay marriage may be a red herring to you, but it is not to tens of millions of Americans. Even less a red herring is the continuing trend of liberal judges thwarting the will of the majority to decide overturn legislation that is clearly constitutional. Court rulings such as those in Massachussetts and New Jersey are why this issue came to the forefront of American politics.

 

Because marriage (gay marriage, straight marriage, arrainged marriage, marriage of convienence) is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is not clearly constitutional. Therefore it is up to the Judicial Branch of this country (which is very diverse in thier thoughts and opinions) to decide the merits of whatever is in front of them. The founding fathers probably didn't envision airplanes, so the constitutionality of airplanes is up to the Judicial Branch of the country.

 

Easiest way to make something Constitutional or Unconstitutional- Propose an amendment. And no, it does not have to come from Congress. If 3/4 of the state legislatures propose and pass it, it will become one.

[Frances Bavier]

I know that this is just a minor fact and facts are really inconvenient things some times - but gay activists are responsible for foisting the gay marriage issue onto the front burner of American politics. Please recall that two events sparked the controversy. The former mayor of San Francisco decided to ignore state law and began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The second event was the Mass. Supreme Court ruling in Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health. (Goodridge was not a heterosexual conservative Christian woman).

 

Now, we have the Kerrigan & Mock v. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health ruling from New Jersey. As with the Mass. case, the plaintiffs in the NJ case were gays and lesbians. The Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) represented plaintiffs in both cases.

 

The attempts by liberals to represent the gay marriage issue as something that conservative WASPs concocted as a campaign issue is ridiculous. The political will to redefine marriage through state legislatures simply is not there, so liberals did what liberals do - they ran to liberal judges to impose their view of morality on the rest of us.

 

So, let me get this straight. If someone asks the courts to uphold their rights, or even more outrageous - decide that they actually have rights, then that is to be considered political activism?

 

Right. Got it.

 

Unless I'm badly mistaken, it is the Republican party (you remember them - they are all about "Family Values") that trots out gay marriage every two years, as a wedge issue. Of course, the bonus is that this also has the added benefit of distracting some people from noticing that the situation in Iraq is absolutely horrific.

 

 

Frances

[Landshark]

So, let me get this straight. If someone asks the courts to uphold their rights, or even more outrageous - decide that they actually have rights, then that is to be considered political activism?

 

Right. Got it.

 

Unless I'm badly mistaken, it is the Republican party (you remember them - they are all about "Family Values") that trots out gay marriage every two years, as a wedge issue. Of course, the bonus is that this also has the added benefit of distracting some people from noticing that the situation in Iraq is absolutely horrific.

 

 

Frances

There is no (US) Constitutional right for gay and lesbians to marry. None. Likewise, state constitutions have been mum on the subject. Frustrated at the polls and by the fact that 70% of Americans have opposed gay marriage GLAD has been on a mission to find sympathetic judges willing to grant gay and lesbians rights that they have never enjoyed.

 

This has nothing to do with Iraq and the point that I made and which you failed to address is that gay and lesbians made this campaign issue - not Republican right wing Christian heterosexuals as you have charged.

 

It is a bit inconsistent that you cite polls showing that a majority of Americans now oppose the Iraq War to bash the administration for not pulling our troops out, yet you defend left wing Democrats who are using the courts to thwart duly enacted legislation (i.e., the will of the majority) as simply asking the courts to uphold "their rights."

 

When is it okay to ask the courts to trump the will of the people and when does it cross the line and become an oppression of the majority in this country?

[Frances Bavier]

There is no (US) Constitutional right for gay and lesbians to marry. None. Likewise, state constitutions have been mum on the subject. [/Quote] Perhaps you could show me the federal or state Constitutional right for heterosexuals to marry? The closest thing to it is the right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - for all of us. I must have missed the language that reserves those inalienable rights to those of us that are heterosexual.

 

 

Frustrated at the polls and by the fact that 70% of Americans have opposed gay marriage GLAD has been on a mission to find sympathetic judges willing to grant gay and lesbians rights that they have never enjoyed.[/Quote] So, this is what it comes down to? As a heterosexual, I can expect to enjoy rights that are not expressly given to me in the Constitution, while homosexuals can be openly discriminated against, based on language that isn't there? Or are you basing the argument on the "We've never done it that way before" portion of your statement? Claiming the precedent of prior discrimination as a way to legitimize continued discrimination doesn't really look all that good in the light of day, does it?

 

 

This has nothing to do with Iraq and the point that I made and which you failed to address is that gay and lesbians made this campaign issue - not Republican right wing Christian heterosexuals as you have charged.[/Quote] Please do not accuse me of ignoring your question. I did address it. Gays and lesbians did NOT make this a campaign issue, unless they were specifically running for office. You are confusing the act of an individual asking the courts for the same rights as you and I, with the act of another individual using the existence of that request as a plank in a platform from which they base a campaign on.

I am making the distinction between the person that asks for their rights to be upheld in a court of law and the person that uses the existence of that request for political gain.

 

 

It is a bit inconsistent that you cite polls showing that a majority of Americans now oppose the Iraq War to bash the administration for not pulling our troops out... [/Quote] When I cite the results of polls, I do so to back up claims that I have made about the mood of the American populace. I rarely cite polls, other than at the request of someone to provide evidence of such a claim. I have no problem with those requests, but I do find it quite disengenuous when someone asks for a poll that provides evidence and then rejects the results on the basis that they "don't believe in polls". That very scenario happened twice yesterday. Hard to imagine, isn't it?

 

 

... yet you defend left wing Democrats who are using the courts to thwart duly enacted legislation (i.e., the will of the majority) as simply asking the courts to uphold "their rights."[/Quote] First, let me say that I do not defend "left wing Democrats". I defend a persons right to petition the courts, regardless of party affiliation, or political outlook. By your choice of words, you are attempting to portray me as if I support only one side of the aisle (politically speaking). The constant misapplication of the terms "left wing" and "liberal" only serve to cloud the issue by attempting to introduce emotion into the argument.

 

To address the point of your statement above, you are confusing two completely separate issues.

 

The validity of polls is simply a mirror which reflects the view of those polled at the time the poll was taken. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a citizen (or group of citizens) pursuing relief in our courts, or championing their cause in the legislative branch. If, for example, you feel as though freedom of the press is a bad thing, you certainly have the right to ask your representatives to have it repealed. If enough people agree with you, that will happen. If you cannot rally enough support for your cause, then the law will remain in force. Polls will have no effect, other than to provide you with a glimpse into the mood of the electorate. In the instance of marriage, we both know that there is no language in the US Constitution that addresses marriage - for heterosexuals or homosexuals. In this country, we have (historically speaking) extended the right to enter into that contract (which, from a legal standpoint, is what a marriage is) to heterosexuals. If that right is extended to one segment of our population, how is it justified that it be denied to another segment? Unless I am badly mistaken, that is called discrimination. The point that you are really trying to make, is that you believe that because the majority of Americans might support (for whatever reason) institutionalized discrimination, that it should already be the law, because you want it that way.

IF, and when it becomes a Constitutional amendment, then (and only then) would the courts be "trumping" the law, as you want to define it. IF, it becomes law, it will be nothing more than legalized discrimination against a small percentage of our population.

 

 

When is it okay to ask the courts to trump the will of the people ... [/Quote] I would hope that, in America, it is always okay to ask the courts for relief. That is one of the major legs upon which our democracy is built, and it is not a right that I would like to see us give up. Especially not to satisfy someone's need to feel validated in the act of discrimination.

 

 

... and when does it cross the line and become an oppression of the majority in this country?

Good question.

 

Let's look at the 19th Amendment (women's right to vote). Prior to 1920, one segment of our society was denied a right that was extended to others. Note that the right to vote was EXPRESSLY extended to others. After an extended struggle, the segment of society that was suffering from that discrimination was able to change the laws by virtue of amending the Constitution. If an election board had allowed a woman to vote prior to 1920, the courts would have been (probably) asked to invalidate that vote (if someone cared to pursue it). At the very least, the courts would have forced that particular election board to cease and desist from letting women vote in the future. When someone (such as the mayor of San Francisco) willingly and knowingly broke a law that was on the books, they were stopped by the very court system that you are decrying as "activist judges".

 

After the suffrage movement finally prevailed, the legislative branch passed a bill extending the right to vote to women. After enough states confirmed the legislation (I believe it is 38), the bill became an amendment to our Constitution.

 

In the instance of marriage between gays, there is no right to marry (for people of either persuasion). The truth is that the institution of marriage is (again, legally speaking) nothing more than a contract. The fact that one segment of our society can legally enter into a contract (whether to marry or to buy a house), yet another segment cannot is clearly discrimination.

 

Confusing the two issues (asking the courts for relief, and "the will of the people") leads to hard feelings and bad legislation, and drives wedges between people when the goal should be to seek clarification and understanding.

 

 

On a side note, I would like to see what scooterbob has to say on this issue. He has a far better understanding of Constitutional law than I do, and I'm sure he has an opinion. In all likelihood, his views are in contrast to mine, but I would like his input, regardless.

 

 

Frances

[Landshark]

Because marriage (gay marriage, straight marriage, arrainged marriage, marriage of convienence) is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is not clearly constitutional. Therefore it is up to the Judicial Branch of this country (which is very diverse in thier thoughts and opinions) to decide the merits of whatever is in front of them. The founding fathers probably didn't envision airplanes, so the constitutionality of airplanes is up to the Judicial Branch of the country.

 

Easiest way to make something Constitutional or Unconstitutional- Propose an amendment. And no, it does not have to come from Congress. If 3/4 of the state legislatures propose and pass it, it will become one.

Excellent post. You are correct. The US Constitution does not address gay marriage but it does reserve the right to promulgate most legislation to the states. If gay marriage advocates want the practice established as a "right," then they should be pushing for a Constitutional amendment. The problem is that gay rights advocates know that the will of the people is against them, so they have decided that in this particular case, democracy is not such a good thing.

 

Our founding fathers never intended for the courts to create laws, having recently rejected the rule of a monarchy. If public support does not exist for gay marriage, then those who advocate the institution should be working to win support instead of looking for ways to circumvent our democratic process.

[HHSDad]

Please do not accuse me of ignoring your question. I did address it. Gays and lesbians did NOT make this a campaign issue, unless they were specifically running for office. You are confusing the act of an individual asking the courts for the same rights as you and I, with the act of another individual using the existence of that request as a plank in a platform from which they base a campaign on.

 

I am making the distinction between the person that asks for their rights to be upheld in a court of law and the person that uses the existence of that request for political gain.

Gays have been making this a campaign issue long before conservatives. It is because of gays demanding special rights that conservatives have chosen to fight for the sanctity of marriage. The gay community wasn't wise enough to be satisfied with acceptance of their lifestyle, buy insisted on becoming a protected group and reconigtion of what many consider to be a mockery of marriage.

[Frances Bavier]

Gays have been making this a campaign issue long before conservatives. It is because of gays demanding special rights that conservatives have chosen to fight for the sanctity of marriage. The gay community wasn't wise enough to be satisfied with acceptance of their lifestyle, buy insisted on becoming a protected group and reconigtion of what many consider to be a mockery of marriage.

 

The right to not be discriminated against hardly qualifies as "special".

 

 

Frances

[Landshark]

Perhaps you could show me the federal or state Constitutional right for heterosexuals to marry? The closest thing to it is the right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - for all of us. I must have missed the language that reserves those inalienable rights to those of us that are heterosexual.

 

 

So, this is what it comes down to? As a heterosexual, I can expect to enjoy rights that are not expressly given to me in the Constitution, while homosexuals can be openly discriminated against, based on language that isn't there? Or are you basing the argument on the "We've never done it that way before" portion of your statement? Claiming the precedent of prior discrimination as a way to legitimize continued discrimination doesn't really look all that good in the light of day, does it?

 

 

Please do not accuse me of ignoring your question. I did address it. Gays and lesbians did NOT make this a campaign issue, unless they were specifically running for office. You are confusing the act of an individual asking the courts for the same rights as you and I, with the act of another individual using the existence of that request as a plank in a platform from which they base a campaign on.

I am making the distinction between the person that asks for their rights to be upheld in a court of law and the person that uses the existence of that request for political gain.

 

 

When I cite the results of polls, I do so to back up claims that I have made about the mood of the American populace. I rarely cite polls, other than at the request of someone to provide evidence of such a claim. I have no problem with those requests, but I do find it quite disengenuous when someone asks for a poll that provides evidence and then rejects the results on the basis that they "don't believe in polls". That very scenario happened twice yesterday. Hard to imagine, isn't it?

 

 

First, let me say that I do not defend "left wing Democrats". I defend a persons right to petition the courts, regardless of party affiliation, or political outlook. By your choice of words, you are attempting to portray me as if I support only one side of the aisle (politically speaking). The constant misapplication of the terms "left wing" and "liberal" only serve to cloud the issue by attempting to introduce emotion into the argument.

 

To address the point of your statement above, you are confusing two completely separate issues.

 

The validity of polls is simply a mirror which reflects the view of those polled at the time the poll was taken. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a citizen (or group of citizens) pursuing relief in our courts, or championing their cause in the legislative branch. If, for example, you feel as though freedom of the press is a bad thing, you certainly have the right to ask your representatives to have it repealed. If enough people agree with you, that will happen. If you cannot rally enough support for your cause, then the law will remain in force. Polls will have no effect, other than to provide you with a glimpse into the mood of the electorate. In the instance of marriage, we both know that there is no language in the US Constitution that addresses marriage - for heterosexuals or homosexuals. In this country, we have (historically speaking) extended the right to enter into that contract (which, from a legal standpoint, is what a marriage is) to heterosexuals. If that right is extended to one segment of our population, how is it justified that it be denied to another segment? Unless I am badly mistaken, that is called discrimination. The point that you are really trying to make, is that you believe that because the majority of Americans might support (for whatever reason) institutionalized discrimination, that it should already be the law, because you want it that way.

IF, and when it becomes a Constitutional amendment, then (and only then) would the courts be "trumping" the law, as you want to define it. IF, it becomes law, it will be nothing more than legalized discrimination against a small percentage of our population.

 

 

I would hope that, in America, it is always okay to ask the courts for relief. That is one of the major legs upon which our democracy is built, and it is not a right that I would like to see us give up. Especially not to satisfy someone's need to feel validated in the act of discrimination.

 

 

Good question.

 

Let's look at the 19th Amendment (women's right to vote). Prior to 1920, one segment of our society was denied a right that was extended to others. Note that the right to vote was EXPRESSLY extended to others. After an extended struggle, the segment of society that was suffering from that discrimination was able to change the laws by virtue of amending the Constitution. If an election board had allowed a woman to vote prior to 1920, the courts would have been (probably) asked to invalidate that vote (if someone cared to pursue it). At the very least, the courts would have forced that particular election board to cease and desist from letting women vote in the future. When someone (such as the mayor of San Francisco) willingly and knowingly broke a law that was on the books, they were stopped by the very court system that you are decrying as "activist judges".

 

After the suffrage movement finally prevailed, the legislative branch passed a bill extending the right to vote to women. After enough states confirmed the legislation (I believe it is 38), the bill became an amendment to our Constitution.

 

In the instance of marriage between gays, there is no right to marry (for people of either persuasion). The truth is that the institution of marriage is (again, legally speaking) nothing more than a contract. The fact that one segment of our society can legally enter into a contract (whether to marry or to buy a house), yet another segment cannot is clearly discrimination.

 

Confusing the two issues (asking the courts for relief, and "the will of the people") leads to hard feelings and bad legislation, and drives wedges between people when the goal should be to seek clarification and understanding.

 

 

On a side note, I would like to see what scooterbob has to say on this issue. He has a far better understanding of Constitutional law than I do, and I'm sure he has an opinion. In all likelihood, his views are in contrast to mine, but I would like his input, regardless.

 

 

Frances

WOW, that is one long string of red herrings!:lol:

 

Forgive me for not addressing the issues that you have raised that are not germaine to the topic at hand. Let us re-forcus on the issue of gay marriage and the courts - and the impact that the New Jersey ruling might have on this election.

 

Most of the rules that govern us are not expressly written into the US Constitution, thus the fact that heterosexuals are not guaranteed the right to marry is not surprising. The founding fathers recognized the possibility that elitists might want to expand the role of the federal government and wisely included language to limit its reach:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

- U.S. Constitution: Tenth Amendment

 

Marriage laws are created by states. The fact that there is no mention of heterosexual marriage in the US Constitution is irrelevant to the discussion. Absent a state law allowing gay marriage, or an explicit right in a state constitution, there is no right to gay marriage.

 

To many conservatives, the gay marriage issue is only a secondary concern. The bigger threat to our freedom is the threat posed by liberals and their accomplices in the courts who use the judiciary to enforce their unpopular brand of morality on the rest of us. If liberals believe that "there oughta be a low," then they need to hone their political skills and get a law passed. Gay marriage lacks popular support in even the most liberal states in the country and that is why groups like GLAD are looking toward the courts for legislation.

 

This is not a wedge issue, the country is united against gay marriage as much as they are on any issue. The New Jersey ruling came too late to have much impact on Tuesday's election, but whatever impact it does have cannot be good for Democratic candidates.

[Landshark]

Gays have been making this a campaign issue long before conservatives. It is because of gays demanding special rights that conservatives have chosen to fight for the sanctity of marriage. The gay community wasn't wise enough to be satisfied with acceptance of their lifestyle, buy insisted on becoming a protected group and reconigtion of what many consider to be a mockery of marriage.

:thumb: I think the weakness of the position of advocates for gay marriage is most apparent when they are asked why gay marriage should be a protected right and polygamy should be illegal. The response that marriage has always been between two people cracks me up everyime that I hear it.

[Frances Bavier]

:thumb: I think the weakness of the position of advocates for gay marriage is most apparent when they are asked why gay marriage should be a protected right and polygamy should be illegal. The response that marriage has always been between two people cracks me up everyime that I hear it.

Regarding polygamy, I couldn't care less. I do not participate in it, and it does not effect me. I do not object to polygamy on either moral or religious grounds. I do understand that, in America, many polygamists marry girls that are underage, which is another issue altogether.

 

I realize that you did not ask for my response, but for the record, I would prefer to answer questions for myself, as opposed to having others answer them for me.

 

Also, lest you misstate my position on the gay marriage issue, I do not think that gay marriage should be a protected right. Unless of course, heterosexual marriage is a protected right.

 

 

Frances

[Landshark]

Regarding polygamy, I couldn't care less. I do not participate in it, and it does not effect me. I do not object to polygamy on either moral or religious grounds. I do understand that, in America, many polygamists marry girls that are underage, which is another issue altogether.

 

I realize that you did not ask for my response, but for the record, I would prefer to answer questions for myself, as opposed to having others answer them for me.

 

Also, lest you misstate my position on the gay marriage issue, I do not think that gay marriage should be a protected right. Unless of course, heterosexual marriage is a protected right.

 

 

Frances

Your assumption that my post was directed at you is wrong. Consequently, your implication that I misstated your position on gay marriage, polygamy, or any other issue was uncalled for.