Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/22/04 12:16 pm:
>>>As I have stated, and I believe the Constitution supports, gay's are part of all in the Constitutional meaning.

Therefore, they do already have the rights they seek to codify into law. Just like the black people already had the right to vote, but apparently needed the civil rights act (with "activist" judges bringing it to the forefront) for you conservatives to recognize it.

Consequently, what you call "activisim" is nothing more than a judge reading the Constitution.<<<

Most of the country disagrees that gay marriage is a right that is given in the Constitution. Even most LIBERALS don't agree with that interpretations. That is why they are trying to legislate it... and why when legislation fails, they try to create a judicial precedent for it. Clearly your interpretation, which is the minority one, is not even accepted by the Democrats.

>>>Plus, if you don't object to goal, why would you object to how the goal is achieved?<<<

Because when it comes to judicial fiat, the ends do NOT justify the means. I disagree with the method for the same reason that I am against Bush's Marriage Protection Amendment. I think that the Constitution already leaves the definition of "marriage" in the hands of the states, and that the STATES have already defined marriage as being between man and woman. That said, a Constitutional Amendment is incorrect procedure. And Judial Activism is an incorrect procedure.

Nor did I say that I agree with the goal, or that most Americans agree with it. What I said was that I believe it is inevitable, and it will become the reality because enough people don't care either way to let it pass. But that is not the same as saying that I agree with the goal or that I want to help it along.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 11/22/04 12:28 pm:

Hello Elliot:

Let me see if I can clear up the mystery for you - again.

The Constitution does not list rights. It bears repeating because you hear it, but then you revert to your rather ridiculous stand that gay marriage is not a right given in the Constitution.

Duhhh. Ok. I got it. It's not LISTED in the Constitution. Nobody's rights are. Show me where heterosexual marriage is listed as a right!

Do you recall the silliness I mentioned above. You're being silly.

If you have the right to marry (and get the benefits the state grants married people) then so does anybody. That's what the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says, and it say's it clearly. I know you don't get it. I'm sorry.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 11/22/04 12:38 pm:
Again, Excon, I will tell you that gay people have the same rights as I have. That is guaranteed in the Constitution. Ergo, a gay man has the same right to marry any woman he wishes that I have, and a gay woman has the same right to marry a man as my sister has. Anything else, excon, is an extra set of rights being created for gay people, and NOT guaranteed in the Constitution. It CAN be legislated. And if that is what happens, fine. But it cannot be created via judicial fiat, based on an "interpretation" of the constitution, because the constitution doesn't guarantee any extra rights for special groups... no matter how you interpret it.

But that is besides the point: the fact is that whether the judges are correct or not in making their activist decisions. It is beside the point. The point is that the PEOPLE see it as judicial activism, and the PEOPLE see it as wrong. And as long as the Dems continue pushing for it, they will continue to be out of touch with what the American people want.

You are still seeing it as an issue of whether gay rights is a good thing or not. But that is not how the American People are seeing it. They don't care whether gay rights are right or wrong. They see judges who are making questionable decisions that effect the law, and that ram changes in the law down their throats without them having a say in the matter. They didn't vote for the judges the way they did the legislators. They therefore see these judges as people who are legislating the laws that effect them without having to stand for election. They see the system of government being turned on its ear, and the checks and balances system and the system of elected legislators being thrown into disarray. That pisses them off. And as long as you keep oing on about whether it is right or not, you will continue to be missing the point.

Let's put it this way: what if an activist conservative judge decided to send a kid away to jail for marajuana possesion for 50 years, based on some interpretation of the Constitution that says that he has the power to do so. Let's say that it is based on some interpretation of Article II section 1 of the Constitution is which the judge feels that he has unlimited power. He determines that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" gives him the right to impose any such penalties that he on his own feels are correct. He happens to be having a bad hair day and he feels like making this kid an example of what can happen to all those in posession of drugs.

His interpretation may be right, or it might not be. But that is not the point. The fact is that the PEOPLE would be pissed at him, no matter how they feel about drugs, because of this judges gall in assuming that he can crete new laws and penalties at will. They'll be pissed at him for doing an end run around the legislative system.

That is the point. Activist judges are WRONG when they ignore the legislative body to enact laws. And people are tired of seeing it.

It's not about gay rights, excon.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 11/22/04 12:43 pm:
"Policy #91, National ACLU Policy on Polygamy, April, 1991: (Current Policy)

The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults."

From The Transformation of
Interpersonal and Group Relationships
by Dane Rudhyar

"What is needed now, or at least as long as mankind is in this state of crisis, transition and catharsis, is a new type of group relationship in which the individual ego-patterns, and the conjugal tensions can be absorbed, smoothed out and harmonized by a sense of common dedication to a vital social-cultural and spiritual purpose--a transforming purpose. What is needed is a group of a few adults, perhaps from four to ten, which can provide a varied and loving, but not possessive and complex-ridden environment in which children may grow up in multiple interplay. It is to such crucial and today acute needs that the ideal of the seed-group comes as a potential answer. That such an answer involves a constant awareness of what is at stake and the solving of various problems of relationship is obvious. The seed group should not be conceived in terms of 'hedonistic' purpose, i.e., for the sake of pleasure and comfort, but rather in terms of what I would call a 'heroic' determination to help create a new type of social consciousness based on an open, unpossessive and polyvalent love."

From Polyamory and Sexual Healing
by Dr. Deborah Taj Anapol, Ph.D.

"Compulsory monogamy is the brain child of a sex negative philosophy which holds sexuality to be sinful, disgusting, and evil. In keeping with their eagerness to denigrate the Feminine, the early Church fathers viewed celibacy as the most spiritual option, but realizing that it would be impractical, if not impossible, to make celibacy the norm, they opted for the next best thing. Their teaching was to have as little sex as possible with as little pleasure as possible and only with your lawful mate. In contrast, a sex positive belief system would recognize sexuality as a form of worship, in which women's and men's bodies, pleasure, fertility, and life itself are celebrated. Sex would be recognized as a means of of entering higher states of consciousness and directly experiencing the Divine. Erotic ritual would be valued as an expression of love and a powerful means of bonding the entire tribe or community. In a sex positive culture, polyamory would be seen as a contribution to society rather than an immoral act."

Yeah, there are concerns, ex.

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 11/22/04 3:18 pm:
Hey Its:

Thanks for telling me what dangers gay marriage poses. I have to tell you, though. I didn't understand a damn thing that either Deborah or Dane said. I know they said something about gay marriage being bad for society, but if they did, I couldn't find it.

Maybe it's cause I'm not a real bright dude.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 11/22/04 4:12 pm:
Nope ex,

They didn't say gay marriage was bad for society. The ACLU is endorsing polygamy, the other two are endorsing polyamory, which is "the nonpossessive, honest, responsible and ethical philosophy and practice of loving multiple people simultanously. Polyamory emphasizes consciously choosing how many partners one wishes to be involved with rather than accepting social norms which dictate loving only one person at a time."

Additionally, NAMBLA has for years pushed for 'man-boy' relationships, and in their own words, "Our movement today stresses the liberation and empowerment of young people. Instead of pedagogy, democracy. Rather than a Greek love mentor-relationship, the companionship of independent and autonomous individuals. In place of male supremacy, a vision of sexual, economic, and political liberation for all. Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream."

And there you have it, these and other warped visions of 'love' all believe their fates are tied together. Homosexual marriage is the first step to legitimizing whatever kind of relationship you want. It is their foot in the door...in their own words.

Sorry ex, I just can't see opening the door to 'man-boy' love, polygamy, polyamory, bestiality or whatever the heck warped minds can envision.

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 11/22/04 5:07 pm:

Hey Its:

Well, there you have it. If we let gay's get married then we won't have any argument against men and boy's getting married.

I dunno its, I could argue against men and boy's getting married, pretty easily.

Is that the best you got? You ain't got nothing!

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 11/23/04 8:47 am:
ex,

Way I see it, nothing would convince you otherwise. But here's the thing, whether you could argue against men and boys, men and pigs, group marriages, or whatever other alternative 'marriage' one could think of doesn't matter. It's that judicial fiat thing others have argued here that makes the difference. Legalizing gay 'marriage' would set a precedent that NAMBLA and others recognize as indispensible to their cause...and some activist judge somewhere WILL go along.

Steve