“Gay Hating”

Jace and I disagree.

One judge stretched the constitution to suit his own agenda. It is no surprise that a gay judge in San Francisco would claim that gays suddenly have a right to marry they have not had in the several thousand year old tradition of marriage, but to declare that suddenly gender does not matter is a bit of a stretch.

In fact, the judge relied on Lawrence v. Texas in part, but as Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in that case points out (and granted it was a concurrence),

That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest [in its sodomy laws], such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations-the asserted state interest in this case-other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.

That the judge was a Reagan and GHW Bush appointee is a red herring, considering judicial picks at the district level have long required the approval of the senators from those states.

The Republican primary has moved into disgraceful territory with the candidates more focused on who can out guard uteruses from coat hangers and children from seeing two guys kissing than jobs and education.

But Handel’s statement is on the money. This was a liberal judge rejecting the vote of 7 million people on nebulous constitutional grounds. We should also keep in mind that 3/4 of the states, enough to pass a federal constitutional amendment, have already banned gay marriage.

I would hope the next step is for Deal and Handel both to support a legislative effort to petition Congress for a federal constitutional amendment. The votes are already there in the state legislatures. If liberals want to keep amending the constitution through the court system, we should reciprocate by, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, binding them from mischief with the chains of the constitution.

230 comments

    • In The Arena says:

      I’m shocked too. I’m shocked that 5 days before we choose our Republican nominee for Governor, the stories on peach pundit only have to do with sexual orientation. We established that this was a non-issue a while back. A couple of front pagers need to stop covering up their candidates lack of credentials by dragging down the entire debate into this realm. We need some new front page posters that will discuss the real issues, like jobs.

      • Ambernappe says:

        This poster would like to see some specifics re: jobs, also. The implications on families in Georgia and this country are enormous. One question that could be answered is how the financial regulation bill could affect start-ups.

        • polisavvy says:

          Unfortunately, I don’t believe we are going to see that happen. This has been a completely nauseating thing to see and hear.

      • Provocateur says:

        Tells you where “conservatives” like Erick have their brain focused…both brains, actually.

    • Ann Walker says:

      But as a woman with ocassional “feminist” views like equality, I find that Erick is right that we are simply “too ugly to get a date” and that we should “return to [our] kitchens.”

      Since Karen Handel openly welcomes Erick’s support, then I will be supporting Nathan Deal.

      Plus, it doesn’t hurt that I don’t want the shame of having the first femalle governor to be a dropout from Maryland who is too lazy to complete even an associate’s degree in the 30 years since she completed her basic high school requirements.

      She also used to work for the AARP lobbying shop in DC. How could ANY Republican support someone like that?

        • John Konop says:

          Anne Walker,

          You are going to support Deal on his theme of him being the king of hating gay people?

          You guys are all such hypocrites!

          When your hero Rush got busted for using drugs illegally all of you went to the privacy argument. But if it was poor kid of any color throw him or her in jail.

          We have lost honest intellectual honesty from both sides! All you guys do in both parties is use issues to dived us rather than solve real problems. GOD HELP US!

          • In The Arena says:

            John, what do you think about Karen being a lobbyist for the AARP? Can’t spell Karen without K Street…

              • Ann Walker says:

                And Lady, do you think that Erick is right that we feminists are simply “too ugly to get a date” and that we should “return to [our] kitchens”???

                • Lady Thinker says:

                  Ann,

                  No I don’t think believe Erick is right that feminists are too ugly to get a date and that we should return to the kitchen. I don’t have problems getting dates and I bet you don’t either.

                  Some men are terrified of strong and competent women and refuse to date them, other men won’t date clingly women who can’t make a decision about how to dress or wear their hair without their man’s input.

                  It goes back to egos, some people have fragile ones and others have healthy egos. I am not a “hit you in the face with my feminism” so some guys and gals push the envelope with me. When they do, I become very assertive and push back.

                  Some people think all feminists are lesbians and that is not true either. In other words, if a woman wants more out of life than being barefoot and pregnant and a good cook, then she is the enemy and has to be put supressed.

                  Don’t let it get to you Ann. There are some great guys out there and a few are pigs. Don’t let the minority of pigs color your view of the terrific men who like feminists.

                  Some people hate gays because they are different. I don’t support the gays in their lifestyles, but I do support their right to vote, to be heard by those running for office, to pay taxes, and to have their needs address in legislation. Candidates need to talk to everyone and get their views regardless of sexual orientation, gender, race, ethnic background, religious views. or anything else that many make them different from the mainstream.

                  If you are a Karen supporter, maybe we can meet at Karen’s victory party Tuesday.

          • Ann Walker says:

            Mr. Konop, you must have forgotten your meds today. From what part of your tush did you pull the fact that Rush is my hero???

            • John Konop says:

              Anne,

              You cannot have it both ways. Deal is running a campaign based on bashing gay people. His latest commercial is nothing more than spewing hate.

              • Dave Bearse says:

                The sad thing John, is that Karen has demonstrated she’s worse than Deal, embracing bashing for you own political gain.

      • Ambernappe says:

        oops! This is the first time that I am mentally editing but it most certainly will be easier the next time…………………

        And this Conservative Christian Republican supports a very competent KAREN HANDEL because she possesses the attributes required of a Governor: perseverance, intelligence, high analytical skills, ethics, experience and energy.

        • Ann Walker says:

          If she is so smart with such great analytical skills and perserverance, then why did she drop out of college without completing a single course???

          • Ann Walker says:

            And why hasn’t she been able to complete a single college course in the 30 YEARS since she left high school???

            • TalmadgeGhost says:

              No doubt, would you put faith in any of those people to realize how important an education truly is in today’s global economy and to be in charge of making sure your children and grandchildren are afforded the opportunity to get a world class education?
              “Wasn’t a big deal for me – it’s just not that important….” Is that what you are positioning?
              I also guarantee that none of these “smart business people” you refer to are under 40 years of age. The rules have been different for some time now.

              • I’m 29. I own a small business. I manage the web development group for the North American region of a decent sized international company (45k employees). I’m a member of MENSA. I dropped out of Georgia Tech 3 months in during the dot com days to take a job with an ISP.

                No, college is not for everyone. I consider myself a smart business person that is under 40, though I’ve never met John. (I handle my own investments, thanks.) Are you saying people like me don’t exist?

                You are correct in your statement that the rules have been different for some time now. Some companies require college degrees. Others have realized that college degrees have lost a lot of the value that they once held. Do some fields require a college degree? Sure. Do all fields require a college degree? No. If you want a longer opinion on this, I believe it was Lee Iacocca’s book Talking Straight that had a small section on this. (I might be mistaken… I know I read something on this lately, but it could have been in any number of other publications.) If that’s where I read it there’s a section in there where he talks about college degrees becoming less valuable as the percentage of people that have one increases. (Along the lines of the supply and demand theories you probably learned in college that I studied in high school.)

                Yes, education is important. But you don’t have to go to college to educate yourself. College these days for a lot of people has become an expensive proposition with little ROI. Look at how many people that have college degrees don’t even use them. I know someone that works at a staffing agency that has a history degree. I know a variety of horse trainers that have degrees in mathematics, engineering, various arts, etc.

                Anyhow, business calls… gotta run.

                • B Balz says:

                  To me, it is not the sheepskin, it is the ‘stick-to-it-tive-ness’ issue showing a pattern of unfinished tasks. As GA competes with other places, a high schooled Governor sends a confusing message.

                  I would have like to seen the SoS slot filled internally, prior to leaving, rather than giving Gov. Perdue the power of (I).

                  Ms. Handel, if elected, will either be the best Gov. GA has had since Arnall Ellis, or meet with a rock wall of bureaucratic and legislative pushback.

                  • Oh, don’t get me wrong… I wasn’t talking about Handel in particular… just the college degree argument. I’m not a Handel supporter… I agree with you on the pattern of unfinished tasks. But I don’t think a high schooled Governor would send any more of a confusing message than it would if we had Bill Gates, Michael Dell or any number of other people in that position. By that same token, Casey Cagle doesn’t have a college degree either if I’m not mistaken. You never hear anyone talking about the Lt. Gov though.

  1. kyleinatl says:

    Absolutely shameful. This is why I’ll never vote GOP in a general election…drop the social garbage.

    • macho says:

      What’s interesting is you are deep in the minority on this issue. Why single out the GOP? As a matter of fact, isn’t CA considered a blue state. When put to a vote, even states which are considered quite liberal have overwhelmingly stood against gay marriage.

      • kyleinatl says:

        Just because the majority believe something doesn’t make it constitutional. I’m sure the majority in the south didn’t care for desegregation either back in the day…but, well, we know how that turned out.

  2. seenbetrdayz says:

    I posted a lengthy comment in that other ‘gay’ thread. I’ll just summarize here:

    Get government out of the marriage business.

      • Jace Walden says:

        Nothing would prevent two individuals from entering into a contract, even with government out of marriage in general.

          • B Balz says:

            Not so much from the after the fact enforcement point of view, but more at Big Insurance wishing to prevent legal gay marriage to reduce spousal AIDs claims.

            An P&C exec with one of the biggies told me once that the death benefit claims stats were really skewed initially because people were living longer. I think Big Insurance hates the idea of gay marriage.

            • Lady Thinker says:

              What about heterosexuals who get AIDS from blood transfusions or from an unfaithful partner? It is not just gays that have AIDS, heteros can get it also, sometimes through no fault of their own.

          • Jace Walden says:

            Just like any other contract is enforced. In civil court. People voluntarily enter into contracts every day: mortgages, leases, etc.

          • Exactly what Jace said. Government needs to get out of marriage (mostly) and should only get involved (civil court) during a non-amicable dissolution/divorce or breach or (criminally) if fraud or coercion is involved.

            Liberty means government should work to maximize freedom and only intervene when absolutely necessary to protect rights and keep the peace.

            It’s so strange that the D party gets this when it comes to civil liberty and the R party preaches it for financial liberty… but only the Libertarian Party is consistent with the principle of liberty and the role of government. Now, we might argue where the exact line should be drawn, but our intent is still to maximize freedom and limit and minimize government intervention, especially if there are consenting adults involved and up until a suspected victim is identified.

            So if the social conservatives want government involvement in this area that results in a ban of some sort, the burden of proving victimization must be demonstrated…. how does a marriage (civil contractual union in the eyes of gov) of homosexuals infringe on the rights of others? One just not liking something isn’t enough.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            Thanks to Jace and Daniel for expanding on what I didn’t have time to before reporting back to work.

            Grift:

            When I was referring to getting government out of the business of marriage, I was referring to ‘marriage licenses’. Few people ever stop to think about what a marriage license is, in principle, but basically, it’s just the government’s granting of permission for you to marry someone else. That’s about it. You pay the government some money, and it grants you permission. The licenses in general have an embarrassing past, as I think it was you who brought up that they were first used to try to prohibit inter-racial couples from marrying. Usually, that’s the way regulations work. They apply to a select few and expand to everyone. But, anyway.

            Sometimes, the only way to keep factions from fighting over power, is to remove the source of that power. End marriage licensing, and let people do what they want, as long as they aren’t causing anyone else harm, and the commitment is voluntary. This doesn’t mean we have to do away with contracts, nor do we have to remove the government’s powers to mediate those contracts when necessary, but the construction of those contracts (or whether or not they should exist at all) is left to mutually consenting individuals (done conscionably, of course).

            No Handel, no Deal, no Barnes, and no Monds getting in the way. Nobody wins, and everybody wins.

  3. Harry says:

    I’ll summarize here: The federal government has no basis to be in the marriage business. The states do, and rightfully so. Marriage is a legal contract.

    We can respectfully disagree on whether or not marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. I personally believe it is. There is no constitutional or ethical reason why the federal government should should support homosexuality.

      • B Balz says:

        IMHO, as Jace points out, two people could enter a contract on property, and everything else they do.

        Or, we accept the current legal precedent on everything from probate to realty, that grants spousal rights in a legal marriage.

        Everything would have to be different, and I don’t think we are ready for that, is the simplistic answer.

      • Harry says:

        I have a lot of personal preferences, but I realize there is no constitutional basis on which to codify my preferences. Homosexuals should come to the same realization. Their rights and protections are left to the tender mercies of the states, not federal. Frankly, most of us don’t see a lot of merit in their lifestyle, so it’s a problem.

          • Harry says:

            Of course. Although I don’t personally believe too much in racial variants mixing it up, I think the Virginia law sort of contravened the idea of equal protection, if not the Commerce Clause!! (hey, I’m not a lawyer)

            • Sarawara says:

              Um, how does the Commerce Clause come into play in Loving v. Virginia?

              I think you must have meant one of the other federal civil rights cases since there was no congressional act at issue in Loving.

              • ACCmoderate says:

                The Commerce Clause comes into play beacuse the law in Virginia that prevented interracial marriage unjustly prevented two consenting individuals from joining in a contract.

                • Sarawara says:

                  Not really. The Commerce Clause is a limitation on Congress’ power to enact legislation. It has no bearing on a law enacted by the state of Virginia that only applied to marriages in Virginia.

                  • B Balz says:

                    (!) Such a mind (!)

                    Do you think big insurance silently opposes any attempt to legalize marriage between the same sex?

                    • Sarawara says:

                      Why, because they will conceivably have to provide coverage to more people through family plans? I doubt it would change much, and any increase in costs would simply be passed on to the purchasers of the coverage (employers or individuals) anyhow.

                      We have a few test environments we can look at to see how this would work out if gay marriage were to become legal nationwide–Massachusetts has been living with legal gay marriage for over 5 years now, and a few more states have added themselves to the list in the last year. We should look at what effect, if any, the legalization of gay marriage had on insurance premiums and payouts there.

                      (Given that, when I graduated from law school in 2000 and went to work at a firm in Boston I was able to put my live-in boyfriend at the time on my insurance as a “domestic partner,” my guess is it didn’t have any real effect.)

                    • B Balz says:

                      I was thinking more along the prejudicial lines of increased risk due to AIDS. I know that is probably less risk, most committed couples are not promiscuous.

                      I don’t the the C-level of major insurance are all that enlightened. That was my point.

      • B Balz says:

        I really admire how much some of you all know, i.e. Loving v. Va. For those like myself who were unfamiliar, here it is:

        Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924”, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

        Grift, help me out, why is this case important to gay marriage? (No snark, just not connecting the dots.)

              • Harry says:

                Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” – Mark 10:9

                Some of us happen to believe that Biblical admonition, upon which contract law is based, would apply to a marriage between a black and a white, but not to two homosexuals – which we don’t accept as a marital union.

                • ACCmoderate says:

                  Harry, I hate to break it to you, but the Bible is not law in this country, the Constitution is.

                  In fact, I believe that there is a part of the latter document that establishes a separation between Church and State.

                  • Harry says:

                    No, why would I think the federal government could override the Constitution. I do think the states should have a say in regulation and enforcement of marriage contracts, and I do think the mores of society and general opinion of the majority (as much as you hate it) should play a role in defining who can enter into a contract.

                    • ACCmoderate says:

                      Again, Harry, the Constitution does not expressly ban gay marriage. The judicial branch (which the Constitituion set up to review the constitutionality of laws), has ruled that marriage is a basic civil right. The judicial branch has also ruled that civil rights cannot and should not be denied based upon race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation.

                      Social mores play a role in your own life. They also have an effect on the types of laws we write and pass. HOWEVER, they themselves are not law.

                      General opinion of the majority also has an influence on the types of laws we write and pass, but the judicial branch was established to ensure that the general opinion of the majority did not trample on the rights and freedoms of the minority. We can’t always fly by the general opinion of the majority (see: slavery, anti-Chinese imigration laws, internment camps, Jim Crow laws).

                      We are governed by a series of laws which derive their authority from the Constitution of these United States. The Constitution and those laws are there to protect the freedom of liberty of ALL citizens, not just those in the majority.

                    • Harry says:

                      “The judicial branch has also ruled that civil rights cannot and should not be denied based upon race, religion, gender, and SEXUAL ORIENTATION. ”

                      Which level of the judicial branch did that?

                    • ACCmoderate says:

                      The 14th Amendment did actually:

                      “ALL persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            • ACCmoderate says:

              “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

              That was the finding of the Supreme Court. The important precedent was the establishment of marriage as a civil right.

              Therefore, according to those who support gay marriage, it is unconstitutional and discriminatory to deny such a civil right to homosexual couples based on their sexual orientation.

              • Dawgfan says:

                If marrriage is a basic civil right because “it is fundamental to our very existance and survivial” than it is the procreation aspect of it that establishes it as a right. So then how does this “Right apply to unions between two men or two women who can’t?

                • If marriage should be based on the ability to procreate, then should couples who cannot procreate be forced to divorce? Just as a for-instance, are you saying that Karen Handel should not be married to Steve if they cannot procreate?

                  • Dawgfan says:

                    That’s not what I’m saying. That is what the decision ACC quotes says. The quate he uses give as the reason marriage is a basic civil right is because fundament to survival. That can only mean procreation.

                    • Fundamental to existence and survival is raising children. Homosexual couples are currently allowed to adopt. So if marriage is fundamental to raising their adopted children, shouldn’t the homosexual couple be allowed to marry?

                    • B Balz says:

                      Tell it to my neighbor Dawgfan.
                      Two wonderful, bright, articulate and sweet kids, two mommies.

                      Once one kid, you know how they will say anything, states to me, “I will never have a Daddy.” I said, “You have a Daddy and two mommies, some kids don’t have anyone.”

                      It is a whole wide world out there, filled with strange and wondrous things. Back home they call it bait, up here they call it sushi.

                    • Dawgfan says:

                      David & B

                      The key word is survival. Yes, homosexual couples can raise children. I know several children who have two mommies. A “Right” is something that is fundamental to being human. The mere fact that you are human gives you this right. The decision ACC quoted reasoned that marriage is a “right” basically becuase humans could not survive without it.

                      So please explain to me how the fate of the human race could possible depend on two men living in an exquitely decorated condo in midtown?

                    • ACCmoderate says:

                      Dawgfan, I’m going to ignore the off color remark that ended your post and stick to the argument.

                      Marriage provides the backbone to the familial structure which has proven its ability to further our society by nurturing, protecting, and educating children.

                      Now I understand that families come in all shapes and sizes (single parent, adoptive parents, gay parents, etc.). Regardless of the composition, our society has been founded off of this structure of raising our children and thus the family (and the financial and emotional stability to such a structure that marriage provides) is essential for the survival and promotion of our species.

                  • Ambernappe says:

                    If the definition of marriage (based on the original Greek) is between a male and a female, the question of divorce of two human beings of the same gender is moot.

                • Dawgfan says:

                  First of all it was a joke. So please lighten up.

                  You talk about raising children, and I’m talking about bringing them into existense. To survive you must be born. Humans can collect themselve in a myriad of ways, but to produce a human you need a male and female. Period end of conversation. So for the survival of the human race you need a union of a male and a female. That is the only reason marriage could be declared a Right. That leaves the question how could it be a right for a male to marry a male or female to female?

                  By the logic of the Opinion you put forward it don’t make sense.

                  • ACCmoderate says:

                    So that brings us back to married couples who can not have children. Do they have no right to get married?

                    There are a number of lesbian couples that have produced their own children via a sperm donor or in vitro fertilization.

                  • ACCmoderate says:

                    Your logic would also imply that adoption shouldn’t be legal, since families are only able to take care of the life that they bring into the world.

                    Are you realizing just how misguided your basis for marriage is?

                  • Dawgfan – not sure who you were telling to lighten up, but I think we’re all just amicably debating here. No hurt feelings intended.

                    Your premise though can be read to sound like only those that are married have children. But look at the numbers of children born to people that aren’t married. Your suggestion about marriage being necessary for the survival of the human race would be the foundation for creating a law requiring two people to be married before they’re allowed to have sex. Is that what you’re suggesting is already law or that should be passed?

                    • Dawgfan says:

                      Steve:
                      The “lighten up” comment was directed at ACC who was apparently offended by a little joke of mine.

                      You are right marriage is not necessay for the creation of life, but you do need a man and a women. The court opinion that established a “Right to Marriage” that ACC refered to stated that it was a right because it is “fundamental to survival”. If that is the case then it is for the purpose of procreation that makes it so. Then the court was surely refering to the marriage of a male and female.

                      ACC

                      And the sperm donor was another lesbian? No, it was a male.

                      I never said anything about adoption. There are many ways that children can be raised. They can be raised by families, by institutions, and maybe someday machines. Regardlessof that, you will always need a male and a female to create them.

                      So, when the court said that there is a right to marriage they could only have been refering the the marriage of a man and a women.

                      Thank you and I’ve really got to get some work done today.

                    • ACCmoderate says:

                      Dawgfan you’re argument is so logially flawed its tough to know where to begin.

                      If marriage is a right solely because it is essential to survival and you define survival as the ability to procreate, then you’re advocating the invalidation and prohibition of married couples who cannot concieve.

                      Marriage is necessary for our survivial, not because it produces babies, but because it provides a financially and emotionally stable structure in which to raise children.

                      Flip on MTV’s 16 and Pregnant for proof that one doesn’t have to be married to pop out a kid.

                      The reason marriage is “essential” for our survivial is because it has long been the structure we have used to raise children and engender them with social and cultural values, norms, and mores. Families protect children and promote their welfare… THAT is why they are essential for survival.

                      Families with a divorced parent are still a family. Families with two gay parents are still a family. Families with adoptive parents are still families. Families with single mothers and single fathers are still families.

                      However, your definition would argue that if there isn’t a man and a woman… its not a family. I know you may have been joking earlier, but it wasn’t just your joke that proved your ignorance… your argument did so as well.

        • The “tender mercies of the states” (as Harry puts it) used to be such that marriage between different races was a moral abomination, and that mixed-race couples had no “special rights” to marriage. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court disagreed and found that marriage IS a “fundamental right” subject to federal constitutional protections.

          Grift seems to be asking two questions in one. (1) Do you disagree with 43 years of precedent making marriage a constitutionally protected right? (2) Do interracial couples likewise you no “special right” to marriage either? He’s basically inviting Harry to either admit out loud that he’s simply a small-minded bigot… or else carefully tiptoe his way though an intellectual minefield that he’s probably been too lazy to think through.

            • B Balz says:

              Church and State seem at conflict, though I am not disagreeing with your point of view. Seems incongruous.

                • Sarawara says:

                  Harry, do you think courts should enforce a provision in a contract for the sale of property that prohibits sale to anyone but white folks, if that’s what the majority of folks in the community are OK with?

                    • Sarawara says:

                      Right. Or no fat chicks. Or no people with kids with disabilities. Or people with kids, period. Or no Catholics. Or no immigrants…

                      You get the point. Should courts enforce such contractual provisions, even if the majority in that particular community, county, state, even the country think they’re fantastic?

                  • Harry says:

                    Perhaps society makes a distinction between discrimination on the basis of race and discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.

                    • Sarawara says:

                      You didn’t answer my question. Should courts enforce such provisions, if they are popular within the community?

                      You’re right that the constitutional standards are different for race discrimination than for sexual orientation discrimination. So let’s take that out of the picture.

                      Should courts enforce provisions of a contract for the sale of property that prohibit future sale of the property to anyone who wasn’t born in the United States?

                    • Harry says:

                      Why should the courts not enforce contracts that are popular in a community, so long as they meet Constitutional standards? Is it possible that when attempting to enforce someone’s Equal Protection rights, someone else’s rights are being trampled? For example property rights, using your example.

                      This is not at all a hypothetical matter. Equal Protection can cut both ways – including in regard to homosexual marriage rights. Ask me why.

  4. ACCmoderate says:

    I’ve read the decision. It’s incredibly grounded and well reasoned. The decision brings in plenty of precedent from earlier cases and is a pretty thorough argument.

    The defense provided only TWO witnesses. Both of those witnesses failed to produce valid, fact-based, and reliable testimony. Meanwhile, the plaintiff brought forth multiple expert witnesses that cited the benefits of children being raised in the household of married parents, debunked the myth that gay marriage is a detriment to the sanctity of marriage, established that civil-unions are unequal to marraige and akin to second class citizenship, and set forth a compelling argument for the unconstitutionality of Prop 8.

    The plaintiffs argued with things called facts and logic. The only tool the defense attempted to use was the big gay boogyman. I commend the judge for seeing through the empty shill that was the defense’s argument.

    Erick, I pose this question to you: “who is harmed by gay marriage?”

    It doesn’t harm the children of gay couples, who can grow up in a more stable, married household. It doesn’t harm the straight, married couples. Heck, it doesn’t harm striaght people at all. It certainly doesn’t harm a republic that stands for freedom, justice, and equality.

    The only thing gay marriage seems to harm is your homophobic perception of the world. I’m sure 50 years ago you would have felt the same way about Jim Crow laws and segregated schools. We have a term for people like you: ignorant buffoon.

    You’re not a conservative Erick. If you were, you’d applaud this decision to get government out of people’s personal lives. You’re not a true conservative. You’re someone who lives off of hate, ignorance, and intolerance.

    Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed of you.

    • ZazaPachulia says:

      While the attacks on our buddy, Mr. Robespierre of Macon, are a little harsh, I have to hand it to you ACC, you’re right. I agree with you.

  5. nast says:

    “If liberals want to keep amending the constitution through the court system, we should reciprocate by, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, binding them from mischief with the chains of the constitution.”

    How many constitutions – US or State level – have the “liberals” amended? It seems that in my lifetime whenever an amendment has come up for discussion, it’s for something that is generally considered a “conservative” social issue. Amendments against flag burning. Amendments against gay marriage. Amendments against “anchor babies.” That’s a lot of changes to documents that we all claim to hold up in such high esteem.

    I’m not a lawyer, and I won’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of the legal ramifications of this ruling, but I’m genuinely puzzled by statements like Maggie Gallagher’s from the National Organization of Marriage that the ruling will “put gay marriage in our Constitution.” How exactly is that supposed to happen? It appears instead that it would take the mention of gay marriage OUT of the constitution.

    And finally, if this truly were part of an overall agenda, why in the world would the judge not wait until after the upcoming elections? Gay marriage has been a boon of a social wedge to motivate conservative voters. This just seems like a gift wrapped present to those looking to further stir up an already agitated electorate.

    • John Konop says:

      nast,

      Show me the exact words in the constitution that deny gay people the right to get married?

      Show me the exact words in the constitution that allows Rush to get off using illegal drugs and poor kid does time?

          • BuckheadConservative says:

            No, it grants mixed race heterosexual couples the right to marry. There’s a difference.

            • ACCmoderate says:

              No, it establishes marriage as a basic civil right. Like all civil rights it can not be denied upon the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

              • BuckheadConservative says:

                That’s false. And Hernandez v. Robles agrees. I honestly do not care. But your arguement is faulty.

                • ACCmoderate says:

                  I don’t think my argument is faulty, the unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia doesn’t think my argument is faulty. And the concurrence of numerous national supreme courts around the world doesn’t seem to think that my argument is faulty.

                  There is a worldwide consensus, including in the United States, that marriage is a basic civil and human right. The homosexual community is being denied this right because of their sexual orientation… which is unconstitutional and unjust.

                • Sarawara says:

                  Hernandez was a N.Y. state court case. It’s not really applicable here.

                  However, ACCmoderate has lumped in the various types of suspect classes for discrimination/equal protection purposes without noting that the level of scrutiny applied to each class is very different. The Supreme Court has only recognized race and national origin as suspect classifications entitled to strict scrutiny. (Also, alienage gets strict scrutiny for state laws but not federal.) Gender is a quasi-suspect class that gets intermediate scrutiny. Everything else, including age, disability, religion, and sexual orientation, are not recgonized suspect classes under current Supreme Court jurisprudence and thus are only subject to rational basis scrutiny.

                  Some states have enacted state laws or have state constitutional provisions establishing sexual orientation as a suspect class, but it is not recognized as such at the federal level in current case law. Yesterday’s ruling did recognize homosexuals as a suspect class, and if the ruling is eventually overruled then I suspect that will be the point on which the case turns.

                  I know this is just a technicality, but we have to be careful when making broad statements about what guarantees the constitution provides. Loving v. Virginia was a unanimous decision because the standard applied was strict scrutiny, which is a very tough standard to overcome. It is not the same standard that will be applied to the Perry case, unless the Supreme Court decides to find sexual orientation to be a suspect class on parallel with race and national origin, which is unlikely.

                  • BuckheadConservative says:

                    “but we have to be careful when making broad statements about what guarantees the constitution provides. ”

                    This.

                  • I don’t think its that unlikely either. Especially, since most recognize that homosexuality is a (minority) class that exists naturally… and therefore warrants protection from potential infringement from another (majority) natural class, heterosexuals, of their right of life, property and pursuit of happiness.

                    • Sarawara says:

                      If you think sexual orientation will get strict scrutiny when even gender discrimination doesn’t, then I *really* want some of what you’re smoking.

                      I would be quite happy with that ruling but I just don’t think it’s the likely result. But I will happily be proven wrong…

                    • ….gender not getting strict scrutiny (I’m gonna continue to pretend I know what this actually means to make a point)… hmmmm, probably because everyone with half a brain knows women control everything already. And the last world census I saw, women were still the majority gender… so, if you want to fight for the courts to give men more power and control of their individual lives… I’m with you. 😉

                      Seriously though, once the few actual barriers were corrected and lifted for women in this country, strong woman, like yourself, can pretty much do and accomplish anything they want in life and I really don’t know of any law still currently on the books that discriminate against women.

                      And just so we understand each other; just because we agree on the issue here of correcting the law to grant “equal” opportunity and treatment under the law… I don’t agree with those (I don’t know your view) that wish to give “special” privileges (by law) to different classes/classification of peoples to make everything “equal” …that would also be discrimination and bad for liberty.

        • John Konop says:

          MY POINT!!!!!

          And that is why we have a judicial branch of government. Because as you know on many issues the constitution is not clear, and usually the people that complain do not like the ruling. The activist judge argument is usually a smoke screen.

        • Jace Walden says:

          The constitution doesn’t give anyone rights, period.

          The constitution lays out the parameters of the Federal Government and how it relates to states and individuals. It protects rights that people already have from being trampled upon by “the State”.

          • Harry says:

            Other than the Equal Protection Clause, which is somewhat vague and can be interpreted according to popular will, where does the Constitution protect the rights of individuals from being “trampled on by the states”?

            • Jace Walden says:

              It doesn’t explicity say it, Harry. That’s the point.

              Look at the constitution, from Preamble to the last word of the last article. It’s a set of rules that define a relationship between the Federal government and how that Federal government relates to the states and to individuals.

              We’ll just take the Bill of Rights here as an example. The Bill of Rights does not say: “Harry, you have the right to carry a gun.” It says “The Federal Government may not infringe upon your right to carry a gun.”

              If you know how to use context clues, you can infer that the “right to bear arms” existed before the constitution was written, and that the 2nd Amendment merely defines the Federal governments role in relation to individuals exercising that right.

              That’s just an example of an already existing right of an individual (the right to bear arms) being protected from trampling by the Government. Get the picture?

      • nast says:

        John,
        Article I, Section IV, Paragraph I of the Georgia Constitution states “Recognition of Marriage. a) This state shall recognize as marraige only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in the state. b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage…” Thirty states amended their constitutions with similar language.

        I don’t understand what you’re asking with your Rush Limbaugh question.

        • John Konop says:

          nast,

          I am talking about the U.S. constitution.

          When Rush got busted illegally using drugs and creating phony subscriptions many defended him based on privacy laws. Yet poor kids get busted everyday doing the exact same thing Rush did and you guys are silent. And you have no issue harassing gay people and violating their privacy rights.

          • nast says:

            Ah, I think you misread my post. I was taking umbrage with the idea that “liberals” are into amending the constitution (as alluded in Erick’s original statement), both US and state, when in fact it seems that such amendment discussions only seem to focus on pushing conservative social issues. I have not harrassed any gay people nor violated any privacy rights that I am aware of.

            And I have no problem with Rush doing time for his crimes.

            • John Konop says:

              nast,

              This is why you are very liberal! You want to dictate social behavior. I could careless if Rush does drugs in the privacy of his home. I could careless what two consenting adult do in the privacy of their home.

              My wife and I have personal social rules for our house only. And when my kids go away and pay their OWN bills they do not have to listen to my wife and me. I have many friends I do not exactly agree with on many social issues from the right and the left. I respect the fact that what people practice in their home is a God given right in our country. As long as they are not abusing minors or forcing people to do things without their permission it is none of my business. I have friends I do not hang out with socially via the behavior of their choice. Yet it is their right!

              I am all for drug testing for welfare because the government is paying the bill. I am also for drug testing on the discretion of the private employer because they are paying the bills and have the liability. I am against the government randomly just testing people without probable cause.

              You want to play God with people. I realize I am not God and just trying to the best I can.

              • nast says:

                John,
                I’m glad that you realize you are not God. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in your continued efforts to do the best you can in this world. Now perhaps you can also work on not being so presumptuous.

                I’ll grant you that by the standards of most people on this board I am a liberal, although by most liberal standards I am quite moderate. However, how you make a leap from my comments above to “I want to play God” and “I want to control people’s lives” is beyond me, but says a lot more about you than it does about my beliefs.

  6. BuckheadConservative says:

    Both sides of this debate have gone completely off the rails. Disagreement with the court’s decision or the extension of marriage priviledges to same sex couples does not equate to hate. The way Jace and others are acting is indistinguishable from the tactics of Jesse Jackson, Janeane Garofalo, etc. “Oh, you oppose extension of welfare benefits? YOU’RE A RACIST” is no different from “You disagree with Judge Walker’s decision? YOU’RE A BIGGOT!”

    The level of debate around here has gone right down toilet.

      • Harry says:

        Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” – Mark 10:9

        Some of us happen to believe that Biblical admonition, upon which contract law is based, would apply to a marriage between a black and a white, but not to two homosexuals – which we don’t accept as a marital union.

        • John Konop says:

          Harry,

          I like and respect you. Yet the religious views you hold in my opinion should be on a personal level. I do not believe I have the right to tell two consenting adults would they can do as long as they are not harming other people.

          I am not calling you a bigot only believe your pushing your personal views on other people.

        • Romegaguy says:

          The bible also talks about not eating cheeseburgers or wearing clothes of mixed fibers. It also says that a woman should have a separate bed to sleep in away from her husband for a couple of days a month. Should we legislate these things, too?

        • John Konop says:

          BC,

          I did not call anyone a bigot, just pointing out the hypocrisy! As I said the privacy argument was used to defend Rush doing drugs illegally. And yet ERICK ERICKSON would dismiss the argument for a poor kid getting caught doing drugs or gay person getting married. Please tell me how that is not hypocritical?

    • B Balz says:

      .but in the club, after a martini or two…..

      I learned a lot in those exchanges above. Con law, States rights, all in a practical manner.

      @grift: Don’t be such so aloof, you are a smart guy, you should be generous with your knowledge.

      @Erick You sure know how to generate page hits, it’s a talent.

    • Jace Walden says:

      I didn’t call anyone a biggot. Or even a bigot for that matter. (I kid). But, I would like to hear your explanation of how this has to do with something other than bigotry. And before you sound of with the age old “sanctity of marriage” red herring, read my comments toward the bottom of the thread dealing with that issue.

      • BuckheadConservative says:

        The institution of marriage is thousands of years old and formed out of biological fact that it is the only union that can produce children. The state has recognized it for that fact. The state has no interest in “love” For legal purposes it’s a binary. Either you are a 0 or a 1. 0 = can produce children, 1= cannot produce children. One institution falls under “0.” Hundreds of relationships fall under “1” Thus, that one “0” gets special recognition.

        That’s a non-bigoted explaination. I honestly don’t know how I feel about the issue. It’s the one political issue I’m almost 100 apathetic about and maybe that’s bad. I just don’t like to see a complicated issue reduced down to “either you’re ignorant and hate gay people and want them to burn forever in hell” or “you are enlightened and open minded and deserve the utmost respect and praise”

        • Jace Walden says:

          So, under this logic:

          A woman who is infertile (unable to produce eggs): 1

          A man who was born unable to produce sperm, or has had a vasectormy: 1

          Since, you know, it’s all binary, these two “ones” shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t produce children.

          Glad we cleared that up. Thanks!

          • BuckheadConservative says:

            Jace, you can’t govern on the margin. The law says that all 21 year olds can drink. There are a lot of 29 year olds that drink irresponsibly. There are even some 18 years who drink responsibly. But you have to draw the line somewhere.

            • Lady Thinker says:

              Same for the age of consent to marry. Most states say age 18 which I think is too young, however, 14 year olds are considered underaged, which I think is good.

            • Jace Walden says:

              Agreed. But you can’t form sound policy based off blatant ideological inconsistencies. If the sole basis for marriage is the production of offspring, then it would stand to reason that couples unable to produce offspring (even heterosexual couples) should not be married.

              On a separate note, I also hear that marriage is the only union that creates offspring. Ha, yeah right. Go down to a local Georgia highschool, take a look at some of the unmarried teen mothers and fathers, and try to figure out how they produced offspring without being married. It’s a real conundrum.

              • I just don’t get it. I didn’t think it was scientifically possible for two unwed people to have a baby. Are you sure they’re not really secretly married? (/sarcasm)

              • BuckheadConservative says:

                Maybe my wording was bad. The only way to reproduce is a romantic relationship between a man and woman. Naturally, society is better served when that relationship comes with a bit of commitment, thus the state recognizes that union for that purpose.

                And I stand by my statement, you can’t govern on the margin. Men and women together have the biological hardware to reproduce and that has been the basis for the continuation of society since…well ever. Thus, the state recognizes that union and not others.

                Easy on the snark there, Jace. Trying to have a reasonable policy debate here.

                • “The only way to reproduce is a romantic relationship between a man and woman.”

                  So let’s say a thirteen year old girl is raped and ends up pregnant. Sounds pretty romantic to me. :-/

                • Jace Walden says:

                  Again, if you want to have a reasonable policy debate, then you can’t just breeze over (read: ignore) the most important point.

                  I agree, you can’t govern on the margins. You also can’t govern based on some type of flawed ideological reasoning. Either the purpose of marriage is to produce children, or it isn’t. You’re the one who said it is “binary”–well, that sounds pretty cut and dry to me. If it’s that cut and dry, then there wouldn’t be any leeway.

                  The point is, it’s not cut and dry, BC. You’re (maybe not you personally, but just using your argument as an exampl) willing to let non-child producing hetro couples get married even though it’s just as impossible for them to produce a child as it is a gay couple. Why?

                  I’ll propose the following:

                  Because your (maybe not you personally, but SoCons) problem isn’t with gays getting married. It’s with gays being…well, gay. It’s the concept of gays in general. They say, “oh we’d like to prevent gay marriage because of the bible and religion and stuff.” I take them at their word for that. Whent they say they want to follow the bible, as it relates to gays, I take them at their word that they want to follow the ENTIRE Bible. After all, they wouldn’t have selective principles would they?

                  Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

                  That is the reasons people oppose gay marriage. It has nothing to do with “producing children”. To suggest otherwise is a flat out lie.

                  • BuckheadConservative says:

                    Look man, it’s a hard issue. I have gay friends. One of my college roommates came out when we were in school. He lives up north now and teaches special needs kids. We’re still good friends and stay in touch often. Awesome guy. It would be great if he got married. But given the arguments I listed above, it’s difficult to make a legal case in my head for redefining a XXXX year old institution. I have no problem with gay people being gay. I won’t say I’m a socially moderate Republican, but I am a socially nuanced Republican. I just think we need to be very careful when we start assigning positive rights to people.

                    • Jace Walden says:

                      I just think we need to be very careful when we start assigning positive rights to people.

                      I completely agree. That’s why I want Government out of the marriage business for everyone. Scrap the tax breaks/increases, the fees for a marriage “license” and all that crap. Treat any voluntary associations between consenting individuals the same–by ignoring them.

                      That doesn’t destroy marriage. I just gets government involvement out of marriage–which hell, considering our government, probably strengthens the institution.

                    • BuckheadConservative says:

                      I can sign on for that. As long as we maintain the bedrock of the institution…marriage ceremonies conducted by Elvis impersonators.

                    • griftdrift says:

                      And I actually agree with Jace as well. With one hitch. If you can tell me how we can practically still enforce the contract provisions (joint property, custody) on the dissolution of the relationship without the government, then I’m all ears.

                      The obvious compromise is call the governments role in a relationship between two people what it is – a contract. And because the government is involved it’s access is equal and open to everyone.

                      Leave the word marriage to the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, jesus freak shake shake, etc.

                    • Jace Walden says:

                      Grift,

                      That is exactly the position that I have been taking. I guess I just didn’t explain it right.

                      Although, I’m pretty sure I did mention in another thread that the Government’s role would be that of a contract enforcer, just like it already is in other contract disputes and civil cases.

                      Joint property, if not explicity implied in the contract, could be divided up through arbitration (as it is in most divorce cases anyway) or by a judge’s decision (as it is in others). I don’t really see how these disputes would be settled any differently than they already are.

                      Custody, as is always the case (unless the child is old enough to chose) will be decided by either mutual agreement or, if one cannot be obtained, by court order according to “best interest of the child”.

                      But none of these “solutions” should really surprise anyone. It’s how this kind of stuff already gets settled.

                  • BuckheadConservative says:

                    And just to put some more color behind what I mean…There are far too many people these days who are far too quick to start demanding “rights” they don’t have and shouldn’t have. When I was UGA, I read an letter in the R&B where a girl demanded the preachers in Tate be banned b/c “she had a right to walk through campus w/o being offended” That’s correct, she thought she had RIGHT to not ever be offended. That’s just one example. In this kind of atomosphere, I get really suspcious about groups demanding rights (or “rights”)

                    • griftdrift says:

                      But you agree that there is a difference between “demanding rights” and “demanding the same rights everyone else enjoys”.

                      There’s also the right to be an idiot. Which that girl obviously was. 🙂

                    • BuckheadConservative says:

                      I don’t think it’s about treating all people the same as much as it is about treating all unions the same.

        • ACCmoderate says:

          The argument isn’t “either you’re ignorant and hate gay people and want them to burn forever in hell” or “you are enlightened and open minded and deserve the utmost respect and praise”

          It’s should a basic civil right be available to all citizens?

            • BuckheadConservative says:

              I’m going to retract that statement. I don’t think having government recognize your marriage is a basic civil right. Maybe that’s better.

              Damn, I hate this. Can we have a economics post soon?

              • ACCmoderate says:

                That’s where the courts would disagree. Marriage and the right to marry whom one chooses is a basic civil right.

  7. ACCmoderate says:

    If we really want to protect the sanctity of marriage. Let’s draft a bill that would ban divorce and make adultery a felony.

      • B Balz says:

        Correct, but it means more to me than invoking a Biblical reference. I am not arguing the validity of your points or in any way denigrating the Bible.

        In my opinion, often the ethical constriction of what ought to be right is usually blinded by religion.

        Though perhaps not practical, it is right.

        • Harry says:

          I may be more into theocracy than you, but it’s my opinion that Biblical precepts should play a role in society including legal matters.

          • B Balz says:

            I agree. The point is how much of a role? Obviously, THAT very question established America.

            Whose theocracy shall prevail? Judeo-Christian is what we have, and I am good with that. What if pop culture starts to play a role in legal matters?

            No offense, butt when it comes to buggery, the Bible is pretty clear – Not cool. Is that how we want to be as a Nation? For some, especially those under 45, our mores, due to Hollywood sticking it down our collective throats (pun intended) are changed.

            The law is a reflection of what society allows, and that is dynamic based traditionally on the Good Book, and now other influences. I am not placing a value judgment on that, it just seems to be how we are evolving/devolving.

          • “I may be more into theocracy than you, but it’s my opinion that Biblical precepts should play a role in society including legal matters.”

            Right… go ahead and start working on that law that will ensure women start covering their head when they pray and see how well that goes for you. After all, it’s in the Bible.

            • Harry says:

              If a couple billion people believe it, that may settle it, at least in some jurisdictions.

              And don’t forget: breeders breed. Homosexuals don’t.

              • TeflonMaster says:

                Hahaha what? Homosexuals have biologically related children all the time. Homosexuals very much do breed.

                • ACCmoderate says:

                  I thought they recruited? At least thats what Karen Handel and Nathan Deal warned me about.

                • Harry says:

                  Yes, OK, on average they don’t breed at anywhere near replacement rate, and certainly not as fast as religious fundamentalists.

                  • TeflonMaster says:

                    What does it matter? It isn’t your decision to force someone to have a child. If a gay couple wants to have a kid or adopt one it isn’t your business. Having kids is not and should not be a prerequisite to get married.

  8. Jace Walden says:

    Erick,

    Speaking of Red Herrings: The whole “protecting the sanctity of marriage” is a bullshit Red Herring of the greatest magnitude. The only things, and you know it because you’re married just like me, that can protect the sanctity of a marriage is the commitment, love and dedication of the people in the marriage.

    Not government. Not laws. Answer me this, Erick, in all honesty (and I’m just using you as an example here, please take no offense):

    Two gay guys got hitched in Vermot today. Is your marriage to your wife less meaningful to you because of their marriage?

    If so, maybe that says more about YOUR marriage than theirs.

  9. macho says:

    “binding them from mischief with the chains of the constitution.” A great quote, unfortunately, I don’t know if Jefferson could have anticipated some of the weakest links, such as the Commerce Clause.

  10. Goldwater Conservative says:

    The “several thousand year old tradition of marriage” is a religious tradition.

    The U.S. Constitution creates a wall of separation between religion and state.

    The legal contract that one must partake in to become “married,” by any other name, is a state matter.

    All people have equal rights.

    The right to engage in contract with another person (some exclusions may apply, e.g. slavery, prostitution, narcotic sales, etc) is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

    Therefore, it is a Constitutional violation of ones rights to prohibit two homosexual people from engaging in “nuptial” agreement because they are different from some other people.

      • Goldwater Conservative says:

        No, it is not just my opinion.

        Each of those statements are facts. Follow the logic. Your religion means nothing to me and is no basis for constitutional or legal interpretation. You are a citizen of this nation (probably, I don’t know since I have never seen proof), the United States. Your citizenship is derived from law, not the Bible. I am not a citizen of the Christian Nation, and the Christian Nation has no legislative legitimacy in the jurisdiction of the U.S.

        These are facts. Not beliefs.

  11. ACCmoderate says:

    Erick’s response to the judge’s ruling. “You cited a known goat f&$#@^, so I view your argument as invalid.”

  12. TeflonMaster says:

    Of course Erick and the whole right wing are completely avoiding the brilliantly written and reasoned decision, and instead engaging in ad hominem attacks. Yes, Judge Walker is gay.

    What is your point? Don’t attack his decision because of some minor aspect about the guy, attack the decision on it’s merits. This of course is not going to be done at all by Erick or right wing pundits. “Durr it was overturned cuz dude is gay.” Good job on the detective work.

    The opinion though is one of the best written decisions I have ever read, and it should be taught in law school. The reasoning, logic, and writing ability makes Scalia look preschool.

    • TeflonMaster says:

      Hasn’t the right wing argument been that gay people can get married, but in heterosexual marriages? Well, that is purely discriminatory. Straight people should be allowed to get gay married as well!

  13. Doug Grammer says:

    I have seen some great thought provoking posts. Let me make a few observations from various posts. It is not a felony to have an affair, but it is a misdemeanor. Open question, if marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, why can’t I marry my cousin? FYI, I have personal convictions that tell me that marriage is between a man and a woman and I have no desire to marry any of my cousins. The ERA was a pretty big movement that proved pretty much unnecessary that was pushed by liberals, so don’t tell me that only conservatives want to change the constitution.

    Also, everyone seems to have problems with Erick’s reference to a Supreme Court Justice and goats, but everyone seems to be OK with alleged pedophilia when compared side to side with goats. Discuss.

    • ACCmoderate says:

      As a goat enthusiast I feel the need to stand up for the rights of goats.

      All kidding aside, we can all pretty much agree that Erick’s comments were in bad taste and illustrate an inability to positively contribute to the public discourse.

    • ACCmoderate says:

      You wouldn’t be able to marry your cousin because incest is a crime.

      Homosexual acts are not a crime per Lawrence v. Texas

        • ACCmoderate says:

          That’s why we don’t have gay marriage in Georgia

          Fornication is also a crime. The penalties for bestiality and necrophilia are less severe than the penalties for sodomy in this state.

            • Doug Grammer says:

              Hand holding is OK. The heavier stuff is listed as not OK. I’m not saying I agree with it or this it should be on the books, I’m just replying to a comment that said it wasn’t illegal.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            You are correct, but the sodomy laws include forced sodomy. That’s why I suspect the laws are tougher.

          • Lady Thinker says:

            Some heterosexual couples practice sodomy so it isn’t necessarily a homosexual act. Example: oral sex.

        • Sarawara says:

          The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that the sodomy law was unconstitutional, even before Lawrence v. Texas (and not just for gay sex but for all sodomy among consenting adults.)

            • griftdrift says:

              AGGRAVATED SODOMY DOUG. AGGRAVATED SODOMY IS THE CRIME.

              The first section is only there to define what sodomy is and no where does it mention homosexuality.

            • Sarawara says:

              From Powell v. State, 270 Ga. 327 (1998):

              “We conclude that OCGA § 16-6-2, insofar as it criminalizes the performance of private, unforced, non-commercial acts of sexual intimacy between persons legally able to consent, “manifestly infringes upon a constitutional provision” (Miller v. State, supra, 266 Ga. 850 (2)) which guarantees to the citizens of Georgia the right of privacy. Appellant was convicted for performing an unforced act of sexual intimacy with one legally capable of consenting thereto in the privacy of his home. Accordingly, appellant’s conviction for such behavior must be reversed.”

              http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/gapowell.html

              My guess is that the language is still in the statute because it is needed to define the act of sodomy for the definition of the crime of aggravated sodomy (see later section). However, the GA Supreme Court’s ruling was pretty clear.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                Grift and Sarawara,

                As I read it, O.C.G.A. § 16-6-2 is still on the books.
                (a) (1) A person commits the offense of sodomy when he or she performs or submits …….to most of the things that would involve a homosexual act, but they could be performed by heterosexuals as well.

                The court case you cite would have be a winning defense, but it’s still on the books. Maybe that’s something that should be fixed? Perhaps state that sodomy is defined as, and then go on to talk about aggrivated sodomy?

                • Sarawara says:

                  When a court rules a law unconstitutional, it doesn’t automatically “come off the books” or get removed from the code. The provision just isn’t enforced anymore. The fact that it is still in the code does not mean it is presently a crime for which you, I or anyone could be prosecuted. The statutes of Georgia, many other states and the U.S. are littered with code provisions that are no longer good law.

                    • Sarawara says:

                      I should say, some states are pretty good about cleaning up the litter by passing new laws that cure the constitutional defects or just remove the dead weight statutes.

                      But I think this provision is still in there because aggravated sodomy is still a crime and its definition is necessarily dependent upon the definition of the act of sodomy generally. So they can’t really take it out, although the GA leg *could* conceivably amend the code to make clear sodomy itself is no longer a crime when it occurs between consenting adults in private.

  14. bowersville says:

    What? Maybe 215 comments on gay marriage on two threads and the various thread jacks.

    And to believe the candidates interjected this into the primary and you wonder why?

    You think that maybe half of the 9-12% of the R turnout may have an opinion on gay marriage too?

  15. Jason says:

    Just want to say that I disagree with Erick. Judge Walker’s decision was based on the facts at hand. A right to marriage exists (whether Karen Handel likes it or not), and was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, and later reaffirmed in Turner v. Safley.

    To say a state has a right to trample over a right, such as the right to marry, is essentially saying that Loving should have validated Jim Crow laws that kept two lovers, who just happened to be of the opposite sex, from marrying.

    Erick conveniently leaves out that this case was argued in part by Theodore Olson, Solicitor General of the United States under George W. Bush and Assistant Attorney General under Ronald Reagan. But I’m sure that is just another red herring. While I’m sure a majority of conservatives oppose gay marriage, Olson’s involvement in this case highlights a growing uneasiness of government regulation of marriage.

    This decision is about individual rights. A state cannot, and should not, deny an individual of a liberty based upon some arbitrary definition that is enforced by a certain moral belief.

    While I believe that government should not be involved in marriage, this decision is the consequence of government choosing to reward a behavior with certain benefits.

    Also, Grift and Steve are right. Under the logic presented by supporters of Proposition 8, Heller and McDonald were wrongly decided as well.

  16. Scott65 says:

    You can whine and spin all you want. We have laws in this country which supersede the will of the majority. The 14th Amendment (which is so stupidly under fire from the right) guarantees this. Our country was founded on principles that guarded us from “mob rule”. The 14th Amendment solidified the rights of the minority with equal protection. The judge also stated 80 facts backing up his opinion, so this ruling has almost no chance on appeal. You may not like this ruling, but it doesn’t matter…I dont like lots of rulings, people used to not like black people voting, people used to not like the children of the Chinese who built the western part of the trans continental railroad being considered citizens…but all of these came to pass and the world ended up being a better place for it. Laws limiting rights of a specific class are by nature unconstitutional…live with it people and move on to more pressing issues. Eric is wrong…this ruling (you should read it) proves it

  17. Max Power says:

    It is no surprise that a gay judge in San Francisco would claim that gays suddenly have a right to marry they have not had in the several thousand year old tradition of marriage

    Why is it only straight white men can be impartial?

  18. kyleinatl says:

    How about this: the government can only grant and recognize civil unions for all citizens, only the church can grant marriages for whomever they allow. Workable solution?

  19. saltycracker says:

    Civil rights, natural rights, social rights…..infinite debate gets modification….Even the mainstream churches today are increasingly blessing or silently accepting aberrant sexuality of many types.

    Still for most folks, aberrant sexual lifestyles fail in the definition of marriage. Not so much so for defining civil unions or social acceptance.

    So with all this “depends on what you mean by” should it prevail that we greatly expand the legal inclusions, how is the harm via material threat abated ?

    Should there be an end to spousal coverage on pension, social security, health, legal privileges….. ?

    Or should it be a mandated takeaway with an increase in the private cost or public tax ?

  20. PegM says:

    Golly Gomer! It’s gonna be reel hard to vote for govner. We gotta guess who hates dem gays or doze who hate dem aboshuns the most.

    I shur was worring about the repo man, and da mortgage dude, and the revenuers….and gosh all get out I can hardly ride my horse on any roads any more with all the crowds of horses and cows and trucks.

    sheesh and all the ads say them Repbuplicans (one is a gal and the other a dude) are bad, they even say corrupt. Ah jes don’t know what to do.

    Supose, I’ll just hold my nose and guess, cuz that Barnes fella already been here and don dat.

  21. Quaker says:

    The Conclusions of Law in the decision read like a primer on the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. (It starts on page 109 of the opinion, for the many who haven’t bothered to read it.) People may not like the outcome because of some distorted religious view, but this opinion was not a stretch or a liberal assault on the Constitution. It is a spot on conclusion that, given the legal precedent, was a slam dunk. It’ll be interesting to read Scalia-Thomas’ dissent when Kennedy makes the logical decision to join the majority in confirming.
    And, yes, the GOP nominee for Governor very well could be the one who expresses more irrational hatred than his or her opponent.

    • Scott65 says:

      I totally agree. I think this has no chance on appeal. It is a very well written and documented opinion (80 facts)

    • Scott65 says:

      Unless of course these morons who are wanting to repeal the 14th amendment succeed (talk about a bad political decision)

  22. hannah says:

    The state can recognize marriage, or not. But, if it does, then the Constitution says it has to recognize all.
    The mistake many people make is in thinking that the state has to give permission for a marriage to exist. In fact, the state is only a witness. That some additional benefits are offered to people who commit to look after each other is merely a consequence of the fact that people looking after each other consistently is beneficial to society.
    Apparently, the benefits being handed out have not been sufficient to induce more people to assume obligations for each other. As it stands now, 51% of American adults are single.

  23. John Konop says:

    ….OLSON: Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundament constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It’s in the constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. Yes, it’s encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I’m very, very pleased about that. … We can’t wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm, that is unconstitutional, must be eliminated. ….

    Watch Ted Olson — the conservative lawyer who represented President Bush in Bush v. Gore

Comments are closed.