There was an article in the SF Chronicle that discusses the very sobering wake-up call that homosexual rights advocates and supporters got on Nov. 2nd this year. It discusses the need to approach the problem in a new way and it also discusses some of the possible solutions.

There was also good news on Nov 2nd as well.


Questions for debate:
1. Of the strategies listed above, if you could only pick one which do you think would be most effective and why?

2. In your opinion, what are the next steps for the movement and how would you go about it if you were in charge?

1. Of the strategies listed above, if you could only pick one which do you think would be most effective and why?



You would bridge the gap with that simple action, conservatives would support this particurally those with libertarian leanings. It also avoids the moral battle all together and turns it into a simple property/visitation/medical descisions rights issue that would get overwhelming support


2. In your opinion, what are the next steps for the movement and how would you go about it if you were in charge?

I would stop the full frontal assault, that breeds resentment. I would also try the above techniques and simply present it as I cannot leave my property to whom I choose, or I cannot have any medical say over the person I love.

Inheritance laws and hospitals discriminate against gays? Where?
The patient should decide who can visit, the deceased should decide in his/her will who gets their assets, and to my knowledge that is the law pretty much everywhere in the USA.

Certainly being overly aggessive is not working, so the courts are the most likely place to get things fixed, assuming they are broke.

A lot of hospitals have strict "family only" visitation policies regardless of what the patient thinks. And generally if they are enforcing a policy like this, the person is so ill they couldn't make a decision anyway. You aren't going to think to give visitation consent to your local hospital because you expect to get in a car accident and end up in ICU. Since your homosexual partner isn't considered "family" there have been cases where they have been denied entry. This is completely wrong in my opinion.

Regarding death: again it is possible to will your assets to your homosexual partner, the problem is that you have to make specific legal arangements to do it. I'd say that far more people who are older and/or have children have a will, especially if they have significant assets. But younger folks and those without children more often than not do not have wills. As an example, I'm 26 and I don't have a Will nor do I really have any need for one. I'm married and everything would go to my wife, which is the way it would happen anyway.

When you are married, all of your assets (and the custody of your children if you have them) auotmatically pass to your spouse. You really only need a Will once you have children in case you both die. If you are in a homosexual relationship, these automatic rights simply do not exist. You can aquire them by spending some time with your local lawyer and authoring some documents, but again it gets back to who typically creates a will. If you are young and have no kids, there isn't a good chance you are going to have one. All of this is further complicated by the adoption laws on the books in cases where homosexual parents are involved. My understanding is that most states which allow adoption don't allow both parents to adopt, one is the legal guardian and that is it. If that person dies then the child has no legal guardian and is the responsibility of the state at that point. The other parent can of course try to adopt, but that seems rather backwards and wrong as well.

All of this really gets back around to the reason homosexuals want to be "married". For most (and certainly all of them that I know) it isn't so they can have some kind of symbolic title, it is because of all the rights and privlidges that come with it. Some of these rights can be aquired (at great expense) with the help of a lawyer, but some of them will be out of reach until the laws change.

That is what this topic is about.

I don't think that gay right advocates should back off of the issue and propose moderate advances, that is simply not their role. Advocates should press for full rights, while the lobbyist and elected officials who share their views push more moderate measures. The fact that even Bush has expressed approval concerning civil unions proves that these measure works.

Ultimately it will be up to the courts to decide, as in Brown v. Board of Education decision, they are the only ones with the electoral independence to do so nationally. But during the meantime activists and their moderate supporters should follow the same tactic. The state anti-gay marriage amendments should not concern them (as long as they don't change the US constitution), rather these measures just prove how much the old traditional idea of marriage is being challenged. Its a panicked reaction.

Answer: "-- Creating a new message for moderate to conservative voters who may be uncomfortable even using the words gay and lesbian by personalizing the issue with mainstream gay couples who are raising children or caring for elderly parents."

Why? Simple. Of the people, family & friends, whom I have seen shift from a stereotypic to a humanistic posture toward gays & lesbians, ever single one of them did so in order to accommodate loved ones and valued associates who, it turns out, are gay.


The situation with 'gay progress' is simpler and more obvious (if not easier..) than with other 'traditional' socially-prejudiced groups - African Americans and women, especially.

Gays are well-represented, in both the official and the practical sense. Gays are well, possibly even over-represented in public office at all levels. Business leaders & professionals of all sorts contain healthy, if not excessive gay components. Gays are successful in society, point blank.

Representationally speaking, gays don't need us. They are strongly represented, on their own.

Many gays, and gay organizations, overtly recognize & assert the long-term, stabilized aspects of progress, over the opportunistic and confrontational path. Although the recent dust-up over gay marriages is exciting, it is not the stuff of stable progress.

I suspect that the priority now is to tone down the sensationalized 'theater', give people a breather, and continue with the successful, gradual policy of showing the human side of gay people to 'traditional' society.

How did I miss this topic? Jeeez, this "some-timers" is really getting annoying. What else have I missed or forgotten to do on AD lately? I started writing reminder notes to myself but I forgot where I put them.



CJ did a great job of pointing out the differences, but I think a few things were missed. It is not everyday that I can claim to have more information to impart than CJ, so allow me to bask in the glow a bit.

Another issue on the hospital front is that of consent. If I am in a car wreak and am incapacitated, my wife is the one who has to (and automatically can) give consent for any risky procedures to save me. I hope that she would, but we do have a lot of life insurance on me.

In the case of a gay couple, the only person that give such consent would be a parent as the partner has no recognized status.

On the inheritance front the difference is very important. When my father died, my Mother owed zero in state taxes because she was his legal spouse. If she had not been, or if someone else had been the heir the taxes would have been relatively substantial.

Since there is no legally recognized spouse in a homosexual couple the partner would have to pay those taxes, regardless of the fact that they were, in all practical ways that persons spouse.

Now the argument can be made that all of these things can be had (with the exception of tax breaks) simply through taking responsiblity for yourself and yours and getting wills, living wills, and various other legal arrangements made in advance.

To that I ask, if this is fair, then why don't we legally remove all such protections from heterosexual couples and allow them to enter into all of these legal agreements individually as well?

1. Of the strategies listed above, if you could only pick one which do you think would be most effective and why?

I like the idea of educating the religious right. A great big mirror for them all to stare into as they recite prejudicial opinions while Jesus himself looks on in disbelief. "Finding new allies" as it was stated above.

2. In your opinion, what are the next steps for the movement and how would you go about it if you were in charge?

The appointment of more openly gay priests into Southern Baptist congregations.






still learning here. Will figure out the signature in due time.

Some very interesting suggestions. I think the best is this one:



If nothing else, I think this election has proven to us that there are many moderate conservatives among us in this country. While a lot of attention has been given to the "religious right," there are plenty of conservatives like myself who don't consider themselves very religious or consider themselves non-religious. And lock liberal states in the past (NJ and HI come to mind immediately) were actually up for grabs.

I think if the gay community wants to succeed, this would be the best. They shouldn't try to break more walls by rallying against the religious right. This looks bad, whether or not they feel it is correct. They need to build bridges, and the best way is to go after the conservatives who believe in a strong family upbringing and that morals play a place in society, not necessarily for religious reasons. If the gay community can persuade this group that they are promoting a healthy lifestyle, then they will win more support.

The other choices are less appealing. The "legal attack" will be a slow and arduous process, and you'd need a staunchly liberal supreme court to help you out, not the fairly balanced one we have now. "Finding allies in the religious community" seems like an uphill battle as well. "Going on the offensive with ballot initiatives" failed this past election, and I doubt it will have much success in the future.

Employment decisions must not be made based on things that will not affect a person ability to work.

However, I dont think the government should make specific laws that supposedly protect gays when all it's really doing is infringing on civil liberties of everyone.

If a person is in a gay relationship that is comparable to marriage in terms of commitment, the two people should set the paperwork in order. Gay rights groups should educate people on how to do this. It is a simple thing and would be one very easy way to insure that people can have their assets pass to whoever they wish and can have whoever visit them in the hospital.

Heterosexual couples face the same problems if they have no Will etc in place. It is just that "marriage" is the way they get around having to pre-plan. So I think emphasis should be placed on educating people on how to protect themselves.

The targeted court cases taken on by the gay advocacy groups are not the way to go in my opinion. They have backfired. $$$ should be spent in lobbying the state legislatures to have laws changed to reflect recognition of civil unions. Democracy works.

Why? Because you can’t legislate love and understanding you can only become accepted as normal when the average Joe and Jane see you that way.

2. In your opinion, what are the next steps for the movement and how would you go about it if you were in charge?

Stop the aggressive methods to force the agenda, put a reign on the ACLU and pull back away from mainstream negativities like the Boy Scouts & gay rights in which you are in a hole digging deeper. Stop with the Gay Marriage and use terms of lawful union and include basic constitutional connection to rights in the theme.

Radical exposure in the media is a negative to the majority of conservatives so chill Hollywood. Casual Hollywood situation exposure could be the most help for mainstream acceptance as it captures young minds. Captain Planet worked for environmental agenda so a situation show with a token gay role model being normal would be a plus for long-term acceptance.

Fighting the government using litigation will prove my first point that you can’t litigate love and understanding. Like Afro-Americans in the Deep South you can litigate to enter the restaurant but you can’t keep them from spitting in your food. The hate will go underground if you force feed it to an unwilling majority so add a little honey or sugar or eat spit.
Force feeding conservatives children the agenda in public schools will create the opposite to the desired effect. You may have the legal right but you will eat spit as resentment builds.
Don’t shoot the messenger you asked.

Once any civil or human rights movement gains the moral high ground it wins. There will always be bigots and homophobes that will never give an inch. The hell with them. You can't argue with a sick mind so why waste time trying? The majority of Americans are not liberals nor conservatives. They're moderates and they are willing to listen if the message is crafted and delivered in a way that is not strident or threatening.

But while there must be a way to bring people together at the bargaining table, the option to turn the table over has to remain a possibility. Sometimes you have to raise a stink, make people upset and take them out of the comfort zone of their preconceived notions. In a battle for the same rights others already have, there is a time for moderation and a time for radical action. Gays and lesbians should work within the system when possible. It's slower, takes longer and frequently involves settling for a lot less. But it doesn't frighten the hetrosexuals and send them scurrying to their politicians to pass new laws protecting them fron the scary gay people.

Gay marriage was a loser. At some point in this country's future this may become a non-controversial issue, but not now. As the election results clearly demonstrate, the idea of same-sex marriage is not one the nation is ready to accept. Gay activists must do a better job at educating their allies and answering the challenge from their opponents. They did neither in 2004 and it cost them.



I can't think of a single successful social movement that was welcomed by conservatives. No, you can't litigate love and understanding. Changing laws is a lot easier than changing a man's heart. And no, litigating to enter the restaurant can't keep some racist pig from spitting in your food. But litigation makes it possible for you to sue the bum in court for doing so. Litigation makes it possible for a black man to sue a white man for green money. Litigation helps even things up just a bit.

So later for the love and understanding. That will come in time when the old bigots and homophobes die off and their old bigoted, homophobic ways die with them. The sons and daughters of those restaurant owners who wouldn't allow blacks to eat in their establishments are now going to restaurants with blacks as their dates.

The forces of gradualism and "go-slow" and don't irritate the powers-that-be are just telling gays and lesbians to get back in the closet at a slower pace. That's not going to happen. Though it rankles many in the black community to have their civil rights struggle co-opted by other groups, the fact that it was a success makes it a model to be emulated. A friend of mine who runs a website for the African-American GLBT community finds wisdom in the words of one Frederick Douglass who said:


"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters."

"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

I think the environmental movement has been very successful, women rights somewhat less and racial discrimination an almost failure.

I guess I shouldn’t be so blunt but that is just the way I see it. I’m in an inner-racial marriage and I can’t comfortably visit my hometown and one of my sons would not fair well if he fell in love with a local girl there. It is just reality and nothing more.

Litigation is well and good but the desire is to be accepted by the majority of the community and therefore I pointed towards what I thought to be a more successful approach.

The stigma on gays is equally strong as that towards blacks and therefore I would put 99% effort to educate the young people. As a child my dad was a bigot and a member of the KKK and I corrected him many times for calling black people the “N” word at the cost of a busted lip. He changed along with Senator Robert Byrd a fellow club member not because of law changes. He changed because of my brother and I, the All in the Family Archie Bunker show and time. He never worked together with a black person or even had contact with on but changed. I don’t think he would have changed so had the black people wanted something from him like the Boy Scouts program his kids attended.

Again the stigma of gay relates to much ignorance speaking for a conservative born in the south. My dad failed to mention my nephew was gay for example, the son of my older half brother from a former marriage. I grew up thinking that being gay was as seldom an occurrence as being struck by lightning. I thought into my adulthood they recognized their abnormality an ALL moved to San Francisco or Greenwich Village in NYC. It was just a taboo subject no one spoke of so ignorance prevailed and probably still does to today.

Now I have routine email communication with my nephew on the same frank basis I present here on the board. I’m not bigoted on the subject just a realist offering my opinion of an approach based on my personal experiences.

From an attitudinal perspective, my Dad was much like yours, though he was a non-joiner and wasn't a member of the Klan, a church, the Masons or anything else other than the local AFL/UAW/CIO. In fact, he was independent to the point of being practically immune to social pressures. His four brothers and sister and were all avid church goers. He refused to go and once told two of my uncles that the only reason they went was because their wives' constant nagging pushed them there and that left to their own devices they would prefer to being in some beer joint.

He hated Jackie Robinson when he joined the Brooklyn Dodgers, but by the time the Milwaukee Braves called Hank Aaron up to the bigs, he had done a complete reversal.

He was a skilled tool maker and union official in a local defense plant. He got layed off and "bumped" down to the "broom" to keep a job. He worked next to a black man. One evening he came home and at the dinner table told us he was going to have to rethink some of his positions. He said that he was working along side a black man and what he saw was another man who was just trying to make a living. They became friends. Even after both had retired, one would call the other if their retirement checks were even a day late.

I never knew what my unpredictable Dad would do. Though hampered by an 8th grade education, he was reasonably well read. He had suffered through the depression. His favorite book was John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. He understood the suffering of the Joad family and I think he detected suffering in others and felt compassion for them. My guess is that reading opened his world and made him amenable to change.

Gays were just beginning to "come out of the closet" when he died, and I can't remember him even talking about the subject. His example has probably helped my "live and let live" philosophy along.

BTW: I think The Grapes of Wrath is still THE American novel.

The most effective strategy that the "gay" community could adopt would be to stop focusing on their "gay" status; in other words their private sex lives.

There is no other segment in our society that puts their sexual status at the forefront of their personal identity outside of those in the "adult entertainment" industry. Instead of focusing on sex, gays should focus on what they have in common with everyone else and downplay their private lives. The gay marriage issue was an overreach and that's why the inevitable reaction occured. There are already laws on the books against blatant discrimination against people based on race, sex, and "orientation". Inventing new "rights" for gay people in order to make them "equal" is misguided. For all the so-called disadvantages of not being able to legally "marry", there are other advantages; economic and social.

The focus should be on ensuring that "gay", like all American citizens, do not have their rights infringed by the government as specified in the constitution and the declaration of independence. Period.

I hear this a lot, and I don't really understand it. Homosexuals seem even less overtly sexual (most of the time) than heterosexuals to me. Could it be that some are just very sensitive to any homosexual display of affection? Do you notice the couple holding hands or kissing briefly near you if they are a man and woman? My husband and I hold hands all of the time. This would probably be considered "focusing on our sexual status" as well. It seems to me that those bothered by homosexuality want homosexuals to be sexless, by comparison to the rest of us.

That's a brilliant idea. Why didn't people think of that before. Maybe blacks should also just not focus on the whole "I'm black" thing. Yeah. We should focus on ensuring that all people have rights without dealing with the reasons why they aren't getting them. That'll work.

You are not inventing new rights for gay people by allowing them to marry. You are giving them access to the rights enjoyed by others. Denying homosexual couples access to the rights enjoyed by heterosexual married couples is discrimination. And just what are these advantages to not being married that you speak of? The right not to have to deal with that pesky ill partner in the hospital because you don't have the right to visit them? Are those the rights you're referring to? Please elaborate.

I don't think you sit back and wait for injustices to be corrected. I think the next step is to challenge the recently enacted state laws as violations of the 14th Amendment. There are precedents from both Loving v. Virginia, which ended laws prohibiting interracial marriage, and Lawrence v. Texas that could support a finding that the most recently enacted state laws are unconstitutional.

We have a constitutional republic which rightfully reduces the power of a tyrannical majority.

Well yes. Blacks would be far better off in my view if they'd stop focusing on their skin color and start focusing on the content of their character. But where have I heard that "dream" before..... but I digress...

Marriage is an institution that was the foundation of the family. It's not a "gay" thing and not being able to "marry" is not a sign of discrimination. Is it discrimination if a cat can't become a dog? I think not.

Explain how gay people's constitutional rights are being infringed by the government if they can't "marry". Good luck.

What are the advantages of two adults living in a dual income household with no kids and no legal obligation for (one of the) men to give away 50% of his legally earned property if one decides to split?

Are you kidding?

What injustices are you referring to? Yes, we have a constitutional republic of representative democracy. Bans of interracial marriage were bogus on constitutional grounds. A man is still a "man" (and a woman as well) independent of their hair color, shoe size, or skin color.

Two men or two women can't get "married". That's not an injustice, that's a basic definition of the institution.

I believe the USSC has held individual's constitutional rights were violated when they were not allowed to marry. From Loving v. Virginia

........




Later in the same opinion

What is the definition of "marriage"?

That is the core of this question.

Two men and two women is not "marriage". If you change the fundamental definition of the institution, the institution means nothing. Why not call the union of a person and an animal a "marriage"? When you lose the meaning of a word, the institution that the word describes means absolutely nothing.

[quote=lordhelmet,Jan 3 2005, 03:24 PM]
[quote=Hugo,Jan 3 2005, 03:19 PM]
[quote]
I believe the USSC has held individual's constitutional rights were violated when they were not allowed to marry. From Loving v. Virginia
[/quote]

What is the definition of "marriage"?

That is the core of this question.

Two men and two women is not "marriage". If you change the fundamental definition of the institution, the institution means nothing. Why not call the union of a person and an animal a "marriage"? When you lose the meaning of a word, the institution that the word describes means absolutely nothing.

[/quote]

Animals do not have any rights under our constitution. Marriage has been called by our USSC as a "basic civil right of man" not man and beasts. The fact is humans have the right to equal protection under the law. Why should my dream of
a non-consumated marriage to Bill Gates be foiled just because I am a male? What significant state interest does prohibiting gay marriage protect? How is the state impaired if gays are allowed to marry? These are the questions thosewho are defending the latest state laws will have to answer to the court's satisfaction. (OK, maybe not the Bill Gate's question) Semantical arguments will not work.

What significant interest does the state have? Protection of our institutions, that's what. The court didn't change the premise of what a marriage IS, they said that people have a right to marry. They didn't say that marriage means any old thing that anyone decides to make it mean.

Subverting the basic definition of the word and the institution is not covered by that decision.

The question is really posed to you. Why do you find it necessary to change the legal and practical definition of an institution to serve a very narrow minority view?

I can't really respond for your passion for Bill Gates. But I suppose gold diggers are not only found in the US Senate contingent from Massachusetts....

But then you are continuing the same strategy that seems to have backfired last year. The 11 state amendments were in direct response to the Goodridge decision -- the very strategy that you are advocating.

You can't win hearts and minds in the courts of law-- they have to be won in the court of public opinion.

Hugo, I agree.

In 1960 people were saying we "weren't ready" for a Catholic President, but Kennedy won. Now we're "not ready" for a Black, Jew. or woman President. Yet Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and possibly New York State Attorney General Elliott Spitzer loom as potential candidates in 2008.

The country "wasn't ready" for the civil rights and voting legislation Lyndon B.Johnson pushed through Congress in 1964-1965. People "aren't ready" for enactment of gay rights laws.

If we waited for people to be "ready" for something, society would never change.

By your reasoning, is there is no "change" that is off limits? Why not let convicted rapists teach public schools and run day care centers too? Our country isn't ready for those things either. Can there be no limit to "change"? I'm all for change when it makes sense. Gay marriage does not.

The issue of gay marriage is not an issue of "gay rights". It's an issue of fundamentally changing the definition of an institution that has been recognized by our society and by nearly all others for eons.

If gays want to forum "domestic partnerships" that are legally binding, then they should go that route. Call it something else but not "marriage".

Civil rights legislation just enforced the unalienable rights that American citizens possessed already as spelled out in the constitution and in the declaration of independence. That guarantee doesn't include the subversion of basic societal institutions to fit the image of a small, but very vocal minority.

The issue isn't whether the public is "ready" for "gay rights". They demonstrably are and have been. Attempting to equate the misguided effort to let gays "marry" with the civil rights movement is an abomination in my view.

And by the way, Obama is an unproven rookie with no track record and Hillary is a first termer without much of a record to point to. If that's the best the democrats have to offer, then you'll be seeing President Rudy, Jeb, or Colin.

When someone doesn't have an argument, they always seem to be able to come up with an emotional and irrelevant analogy like, "Why not let convicted rapists teach public schools and run day care centers too? Our country isn't ready for those things either."



I didn't say any of these people would get the Democratic nomination in 2008. The point was that they are being mentioned and some are already saying that the country isn't "ready" for people in their respective groups.

And by the way I hope people aren't "ready" to form a monarchy by electing Jeb.

I thought personal attacks were not allowed in here? Whatever. What's emotional and irrelevant about my analogy? The poster was making the point that "change" is a good thing by making several emotional and irrelevant comparisons between the misguided "gay marriage movement" and the civil rights movement which corrected a fundamental wrong in our country.




A monarchy? Were those people who voted for JFK, supported RFK, and hoped FRK would run for office closet monarchists??

The bottom line is that people shouldn't be ready for two rookies with no experience to lead our country. I'd say the reaction to both Obama, and Hillary has been "emotional" and "irrational". Obama gave one speech and Hillary just hid behind her husband when the going got a little rough and then ran off to carpetbag in NY knowing that her chances in that solidly "blue" state were better than they would be in AR.

Hardly "presidential" behavior by any stretch. Jeb has run a large state very effectively just like his brother did. He did it effectively in spite of an extreme and entrenched political opposition and under challenging circumstances. Outstanding qualifications if you ask me.

You are assuming far too much. I liked Robert Kennedy, but did not want him (or Edward) to become President for the same reason I doin't want Jeb Bush. Although, I will argue that Jeb is more talented and would have made a better Presiden than Dubya.

Actually, I supported Eugene McCarthy for President 1n 1968 and switched to Humphrey when he got the nominaion.

It is much more reasonable to say people aren't "ready" for a third Bush, than to suggest we aren't "ready" to give people their constitutional rights--that is giving gays the same rights as other citizens.

Frankly, you are assuming I was referring to you. What I asked was if you thought that people that supported JFK, Robert, and the Fat Rich Kid were monarchists too?

Also, the people can't "give" anyone their constitutional rights. Nor can the government.

Our system is based on the premise that those rights are unalienable and that the people have them all along. The government can only infringe upon them. They can't grant them.

Now, which one of the guaranteed "constitutional rights" is the government infringing upon when it comes to gay people? It can't be "marriage" because that social concept is based on a man and a woman. So, which rights are you referring to?

This was Dubya's position during the election, and while widely held, it is not universal. Certainly the Massachusetts Supreme Court didn't see it this way. This is merely an opinion, much like when life begins.

You are stating your opinions, which I suggest the majority of Americans share, as facts.

If some man wants to consider himself married to another man or a woman to another woman, why should this even concern me. What ever happened to the idea of "live and let live?"

It's the position of the majority of Americans also, not just the president. The MA Supreme Court overstepped their bounds (yet again). They are the poster children for the sins of judicial activism. They didn't apply the constitution, they just created a new "right" out of thin air. Frankly, I think they're in a contest between themselves, the Florida SC, and the 9th circuit to see who can distort our constitution the most. Right now, MA is ahead by a Henry Waxman nostril.

Live and let live? Sure. I'm all for it. If two guys want to live together and have a "relationship" behind closed doors, I could care less. Frankly, the only person's sex life that I care about is mine.

But that's not the issue. The issue is whether our institutions have any meaning and any validity or whether they can be changed on a whim.

I don't like baseball and like football a lot better. I think that the baseball players should be able to tackle each other and that end zones should be put on the diamond to allow for 7 runs at a time.

We can still call it baseball because that's my "opinion".

By the way, nearly everything we recognize as a "fact" is essentially an "opinion".

In your infinite wisdom you have lost me on this one. Baseball--tackle, end zones on the diamond and a seven runs at a time. This seems like a summer version of football, except that it would be possible to score seven runs at one time rather than the six a touchdown provides. How would you work in the extra point? BTW: Should basketball players be allowed to tackle each other?

This idea might work as a musical performed in theater-in-the-round. Or would that be theater-on-the-damond?

Exactly!!! You are 100% free to call it baseball, you can call it "bologna sandwich" if it makes you happy, and if there was a pack of rabid moralists telling you that you cannot, I'd oppose that as well. Because it has ZERO effect on my life. Just like if my next door neighbor married a male. Or his favorite piece of furniture. As long as he is not hurting anyone, none of anyone's business.

Exactly. One can try to change the fundamental rules of what we know as "baseball" and it won't make sense. That is the truth, in spite of my "preference" for football.

They are two separate games. Just like "marriage" and "domestic partnerships". Trying to merge the two very different "games" would be not much more than musical comedy with a less than Tony award winning composer hacking together the score...

Again you present rediculous analogy to back up an opinion, that while shared by the majority of Americans, is just an opinion. Many of us think that the Massachusetts Supreme Court was merely interpreting the state Constitution, not being "judicial activists," whatever that right-wing buzz word means.

So, words mean nothing? Laws mean nothing? Institutions mean nothing?

The only thing that matters is a person's self interests and whether he or she is not "hurting" someone else?

What is your definition of "hurt"? What about neighbor? Furniture? Don't even go near "bologna".

When you throw everything out the window in an ill-thought-out quest for utopian anarchy, EVERYTHING gets thrown out. People who recognize that civilization requires institutions, traditions, customs, norms, mores, and the concept of the rule of law are not "rabid moralists". They are called responsible adults.

First off, all "facts" as you know them are nothing more than generally accepted "opinion".

Second, the concept of judicial activism is not a "right wing" buzz word. Our system was set up as a system of checks and balances with the judiciary as a coequal branch. When they go off and start short circuiting the legislative and executive branches, not to mention the citizens of this country, that is a situation that must be rectified. I wish you'd recognize that an activist court could easily cut both ways and that "right wing" radicals could distort the system in the way that the current liberal activists have done in places like taxa, uh I mean Massachusetts.

And finally, my analogy was brilliant, not "ridiculous". You obviously do not share my Power of the Schwartz.

Sure. At one point it was commonly held opinion that the earth was flat. Then someone (we really don't know who or when), discovered that it was round. Did "generally accepted opinion" that the wolrd was flat make it that way? Did anyone ever start walking and plunge off the edge of the planet when they came to the end? I don't think so.

Here's an interesting link:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jan20...04968.Sh.r.html

The generally accepted position that the world was flat did not make it that way. That was my point. Thank you for confirming my premise.

The same thing is true of nearly all matters. There are very few absolute truths within our range of knowledge. That's why I responded to your charge that my opinions on gay marriage were opinions, not "facts".

My point is that there are NO facts surrounding that issue or nearly any other philosophical or social question that we face. That's not the point.

I oppose gay marriage because it would fundamentally change a basic institution within our society and severely upset the established social customs, mores, and traditions. Many of our institutions are worth saving, worth "conserving", and worth protecting and "marriage" is one of them in my opinion.

The argument that gays are somehow being irrevocably harmed because they can't "marry" is absurd. As I stated in another post, for every so-called "disadvantage" of not obtaining marital status, there are 1-2 advantages associated with their status.

I would argue that court cases only sometimes further "the cause". The Brown decision sparked the Civil rights movement-- but it was that movement that got the Civil Rights act of 1964 enacted. And that is a good thing. But Brown and its original purpose?? I would argue that it did nothing for its original purpose (equal education). People moved after Brown-- and you can't stop that. We got de facto segregation instead of forced segregation.

In contrast, you have the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts that forced gay marriage. Did it further the "cause" of gay marriage? I would argue it set it back. 11 state amendments later and a conservative administration appointing conservative justices on the Supreme Court will set back the gay marriage cause by decades.

No, I would argue, that yes indeed the "people" must be ready to accept a social change. Fundamental societal change cannot be mandated from the bench.

Amlord, i find it unethical for you to use your position as a moderator in that circumstance. If you agree with a conservative admin using its position to emplace conservative judges is one thing, but the point in valid in regards to social issues in america. It wont matter if america overall does not mind the issue of homosexuals having equal rights, the judges will not allow for it, and then the government will not be representing the will of the people overall, just a part of it they like or desire. Some people dont wany homosexuals to have equal rights, i am not one of them, and this is a debate, and the fact of having conservative judges in the aspects of making law on this issue or the populous overall is a valid point, i dont find it as something that attacks anyone or any words that did such, and overall just seems like a find point in this broad debate is not allowed, and why???