Couldn’t find enough real bigots?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZaGks5LkkI[/youtube]

If there were meaningful truth in advertising laws, these “real people” would say “I’m a shitty, no-talent actor willing to work for hate merchants because I have no self-respect.”

On the other hand, I am a real Washington state parent successfully teaching my children that political advertising is usually deceptive, and that basic human rights are not optional. You don’t even have to be very old to see through this stuff. A storm, oh, for crying out loud.

But, please, please, please, someone comment that we must be “civil” towards the hate merchants, because if we’re not civil to the hate merchants, then we’re the haters. Because pointing out ridiculous bigotry is exactly like being Hitler and Pol Pot, you know.

(Props to AMERICAblog.)

Comments

  1. 1

    Baby Jesus Hole spews:

    “I am a dick with ears, and I give hand jobs to christian men in the lunch room” “Happy Easter endings!!”

  2. 2

    Rick D. spews:

    Sorry little big Jon, but everyone with a brain knows that Bigotry is a Democrat family value…..just ask exhibit A – KKK Grand Keagle still serving Senator/relic Robert Byrd (Democrat-WV)

    As if on cue, theres another ignorant bigot @ 1 for exhibit B……..or look in the mirror for exhibit C.

  3. 3

    Statistics and Damn Statistics spews:

    #2- The KKK is entirely Republican. There are NO members of the KKK who voted for Obama. The KKK ‘used to’ be a Democrat institution when the Democrats controlled the south decades ago. But TODAY (modern times, now, currently) they’re ALL Republicans. Which party favors gays, Jews and blacks more? NO member of the KKK votes for gay/jew/black loving Democrats you idiot.

    Sigh. Once again, the more “real” something claims to be, the more fake it really is.

    America is GREAT because we have the Amish AND Las Vegas. We’re not forced to live one or the other lifestyle, 98% of folks are somewhere in between. FREEDOM means if you WANT to give up music, dancing and garish clothing, you CAN. If you want to watch a topless show and drink on Christmas, you can. LIVE FREE OR DIE!

    Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t marry someone of the same sex! Did god tell you pork is an abomination and you can’t work on the Sabbath? Then don’t eat hot dogs and don’t work on the Sabbath. Problem solved!

    Why do THESE douches INSIST I have to live their lifestyles and follow THEIR religion even if I’m NOT a member of their religion? Get the f**k over it! There are 6 billion people in the world, no matter WHAT you believe, MOST folks believe something else (no ONE religion/sect has more than 3 billion followers). GROW UP!!!!!

  4. 4

    EvergreenRailfan spews:

    Rick D, give the man a break, he admits his involvement will always be an Albatross around his neck.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....05_pf.html

    Say, do you also mock former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black for being a racist. He was a member briefly of the KKK as well, fillibustered an anti-lynching bill, but as a Supreme Court Justice, was part of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. He said the reason he joined the Klan was he thought it would help his political career, which in many parts of the country in the 1920s, was true.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....vil_rights

  5. 5

    proud leftist spews:

    Little Ricky Dumbfuck
    There is a reason that the last stronghold of the GOP is the South–that is where people still fly the Confederate flag and think that racism is quite alright. Naturally, such people are attracted to the party that shares their values. That party would be your party.

  6. 6

    Blue State Bigot spews:

    J. Edgar Hoover killed the KKK to stop them from killing even more uppity disfranchised victims of the Democrat Party.

    Hoover used the same excellent tactics that finally shut down Ayers/Dohrn/Boudin and their little shop of leftist horrors.

    So … KKK Democrats and bomb-throwing leftists: you people should come with a warning label. You’re hazardous to our health.

  7. 8

    Rick D. spews:

    3. Statistics and Damn Statistics spews:

    Why do THESE douches INSIST I have to live their lifestyles and follow THEIR religion even if I’m NOT a member of their religion?

    Who said you have to? This is America, you can do as you please pretty much.
    You sound like a whiny, miserable, little liberal to me.
    But hey, at least you lefties are consistent in your misery index.

    Get the f**k over it!

    I agree! You should.

    GROW UP!!!!!

    Again, I agree. Life is too short to be a bigot (religious bigot included) and angry at the same time. Thanks for exposing the HA faithfull as the bigots they are, Jon.

  8. 11

    GBS spews:

    What I find interesting about this debate is that those who identify themselves as socially conservative chant the mantra “Defend Freedom” and yet here they are, again, limiting the freedoms of a certain sector of the American population.

    Socially conservative people are the ones who:
    Want to limit the rights of gay couples.
    Oppose Gays serving in the military.
    Prevented minorities from voting.
    Supported segregation in schools.
    Outlawed interracial marriage.
    Supported Jim Crowe laws.
    Fanned the flames of McCarthyism.
    Denied women the right to vote.
    Supported rape if a husband committed the crime.
    Favored a women losing her positions at marriage.
    And, slavery.

    In each of these cases Christianity was the supporting basis of their reasoning to limit the rights and freedoms of other American citizens.

    I challenge any conservative to set aside your religious dogma and give the “compelling legal argument” why the state has an interest in banning gay marriage.

    I CHALLENGE you.

    Oh, one caveat, you must stay within the framework of our nation’s founding principles and the Constitution.

    Good luck.

  9. 12

    proud leftist spews:

    GBS
    That is a fine challenge, and I will be interested to see if any of our wingie friends here can rise to the challenge within the parameters you’ve set. I would, at the same time, like to state a bit of a counterpoint to this assertion: “In each of these cases Christianity was the supporting basis of their reasoning to limit the rights and freedoms of other American citizens.”
    In many of the cases you identify, Christians led the charge toward freedom–certainly the antislavery movement was deeply infused with Christian values. Likewise, the civil rights movement had a heavy Christian flavor–Reverends King, Abernathy, and Lowry come quickly to mind. Even with regard to gay marriage, many Christians are strong advocates–this Christian, for instance. The commandment to love and not condemn must often lead to involvement in the social movements of the day.

  10. 13

    Not Getting It spews:

    #11 – Good point! Religion was used as a ‘crutch’ on BOTH sides of the slavery issue (as arguments for AND against it)…and on both sides of the civil rights movement. That is funny, both sides think god’s on their side (remind you of the middle east at all?)

    #7 – Rick D.

    Boy, the point being made is that the religious right (not all religion, but the political right), specifically with gay marriage, are the ones trying to FORCE folks to live a certain way. There is no “liberal” state that has outlawed straight marriage, or Christianity. YOU are free to live the way YOU want (join the Amish or move to Las Vegas, great example). The only a**holes are the people who want to control you and restrict your life for ONLY magical reasons (nothing based in reason or science). The Republicans want to keep gays from getting married. They wanted (and some still do) to keep black people from marrying white people. They didn’t want women to vote, slaves to be free, or people to have a choice of religion. That my boy, is a FUNNY definition of freedom…I’m free to live my life, only if YOU’RE ok with it. Boy, I don’t CARE what religion YOU belong to, how often (if at all) you go to church, whether you eat pork or work on the Sabbath…that’s up to YOU. You’re free to join the Amish or move to Vegas, and I hope YOU offer me the same freedom.

  11. 14

    Steve spews:

    @10 “Fanned the flames of McCarthyism.”

    Speaking of which, a Republican congressman reports that he has a secret list of seventeen socialists presently serving in congress. All Democrats, no doubt. Geez, they used to call them “commies”. Perhaps Republicans have made some progress after all.

    http://blog.al.com/spotnews/20.....nty_o.html

  12. 15

    proud leftist spews:

    12
    Ronald Dworkin, a great constitutional scholar who has taught at institutions like Harvard and Oxford, put out a little tract several years ago entitled, “On Equality.” His position was that conservatives believe in treating people as equals under whatever legal system might be in place at a particular time, no matter how skewed toward some group that system might be, while liberals believe in treating all others as equals–as having aspirations of equal value, values of equal value, etc. The distinction makes plenty of sense. Today’s American conservative sees his freedom as compromised simply by having to observe someone else exercise a freedom that offends the conservative’s values.

  13. 16

    Rick D. spews:

    GBS Spewed:
    I challenge any conservative to set aside your religious dogma and give the “compelling legal argument” why the state has an interest in banning gay marriage.

    By conservative of course you mean President Obama and Vice president “clueless” Joe Biden as well, correct? As they both also oppose “gay marriage”.

    Not getting it Boy Spewed:The Republicans want to keep gays from getting married.

    Bullshit!! as I just pointed out above with the 2 most glaring examples. Hypocrisy is thy friend.

    They wanted (and some still do) to keep black people from marrying white people. They didn’t want women to vote, slaves to be free, or people to have a choice of religion.

    Again, Bullshit! spouting it doesn’t make it true even if it does come from the bottom of your pitiful soul. You may want to look up the Sr. Senator and Democratic leader within the Democrat party that served as the Grand Keagle of the KKK, filibustered the Civil rights act of 1964, and voted against both Thurgood Marshall AND Clarence Thomas for the SCOTUS……once again, Hypocrisy is thy friend.

    That my boy, is a FUNNY definition of freedom…I’m free to live my life, only if YOU’RE ok with it.

    Wow son, you’re even more pitiful than I thought. So now, you’re not free because of what I may think?
    …Some cheese to go with that Whine?

    Boy, I don’t CARE what religion YOU belong to, how often (if at all) you go to church, whether you eat pork or work on the Sabbath…that’s up to YOU.

    …then how come you need my blessings from your previous sentence? You seem very confused, son.

  14. 17

    GBS spews:

    PL @ 11:

    You’re correct, Christians led the charge against many of the social ills I listed. I’m not trying to frame the debate that all Christians are bad, but rather, the social conservatives who cloak their bigotry in one of the world’s great religions. Similar to how al Qeada and other Islamic terrorist operate.

    You’ll also notice that I did not say Republicans or political conservatives. That is by design. Because over time the “labels” have shifted but the deeply rooted social positions have not between those who are socially conservative and socially liberal.

    (Intellectual thinking required for the next paragraph. Republicans and conservatives skip down to the next paragraph) That’s why both posts at 2 and 3 are both wrong and correct at the same time. Depending on the reference point in history both can create political cover. Rick D @ 2 is correct, in the 40’s, 50’s and up to the mid 60’s KKK members in the South were Democrats. In that time period Rockefeller Republicans in the Northeast were Liberals. No self respecting southerner would call themselves a Republican. Strom Thurmond, Ronald Reagan, Trent Lott, Michael Medved, Michael “Savage” Weiner were Democrats until the mid 60’s.

    Then they switched parties during the Civil Rights era. As did most of the people living in the South.

    What happened? Why the sudden change in the South? Did all the gay accepting, nigger loving, socialist Republicans move to NY and CA?

    Not likely. There was a shift in party affiliation (labels) but not a shift in social ideology in that region of the country.

    My point being that socially conservative people tend to be religious, prefer authoritarian social structure, and use dogma as their guiding principle for legislative justification. Not that all Christians are inherently bad.

  15. 18

    GBS spews:

    Rick D. @ 15:

    You’ll get no argument from me, I believe that President Obama and VP Biden are WRONG on this issue — DEAD WRONG to use Biden’s words.

    Unlike the thinking of the last 8 years I can be harshly critical of my leaders and speak truth to power. Unlike Republicans, like Tom DeLay who could not, would not be “disloyal to my president.” I’m loyal to the Rule of Law and the principles of the Constitution.

    Yes, I have written both of them on the errors of their ways.

    While you’re telling others to Google Sen Byrd’s past, why don’t you, YOU Rick D. Google his reversal on this subject, his contrition, and noted errors of his personal judgment back then?

    Better yet, why don’t you just rise to the challenge and give us the compelling legal argument to limit the rights and freedoms of American citizens.

    This is a chance to show off your astute legal mind, critical thinking skills, and knowledge of American principles.

    Good luck.

  16. 19

    GBS spews:

    Rick D. check with our resident black conservative and my brother from another mother, Puddybud. I schooled him on this subject of race and demography in the South.

    Puddybud is one big black Mo’Fo’ and I doubt most people on this blog would want to mix it up with him. I’ve had lunch with him a couple of times and he’s a real good guy. Just not in his right mid when it comes to politics. Same goes for PacMan. Last time Me and Pudd hooked up was at the taqueria bus in the ‘hood (my suggestion, wanted to test his mettle to see how real he was at one of my favorite places to eat in Seattle.) If memory serves correctly Mr. Cynical wouldn’t show up in Rainier Valley to meet us.

    Any whoooooo, what up Puddy! How’s the knee? Still doing your squats? Don’t forget, I know which one of your knees is the bum one.

  17. 20

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Stats and More Damn Stats:

    Why do THESE douches INSIST I have to live their lifestyles and follow THEIR religion even if I’m NOT a member of their religion? Get the f**k over it!

    We’ve already seen it in North Dakota home loans and taxi cabs in Minneapolis. Or this ruling on an Islamic school. clueless wonder was speechless as always. Well he is clueless.

    One of your friends once said…”Catholic priests pose more of a terrorism threat by having sex with young altar boys than those who flew planes into the World Trade Center.”

    What will you do when Sha’ria law happens? Will you “get over it”?

  18. 21

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    GBS axked:

    I challenge any conservative to set aside your religious dogma and give the “compelling legal argument” why the state has an interest in banning gay marriage.

    There is a simple one. White peeps will be the minority by 2042. You’ll be an ever dying breed like Europe now…

    Puddy challenges any leftist pinhead to set aside your progressive dogma and give the “compelling legal argument” on how two males or two females procreate life?

    67% of Hispanics and 70% of Blacks voted for the CA Prop 8. Were they all wrong GBS?

    See ya!

  19. 22

    Rick D. spews:

    Better yet, why don’t you just rise to the challenge and give us the compelling legal argument to limit the rights and freedoms of American citizens.

    Apparently we’ve moved onto the subject of abortion as that would certainly qualify under the “Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness” clause. I’m sure you’d agree, and yet, somehow I think you disagree as well.

    As soon as you show me where that “right” you speak of is guaranteed within the framework of the U.S. Constitution, I’ll oblige you. To my knowledge, it does not contain even the remotest mention of “gay marriage” (with full disclosure that I am not a Constitutional lawyer). I like how you switched that around though, GBS.

    The legal argument is for you to lay out to the legislature who makes the laws, or through the people by referendum. The legal avenues are there for you to pursue and it is incumbent on you to argue your case, not the other way around.

    I suggest you start taking your own party to task starting with the 2 aforementioned. Villifying the right on this issue is simplistic, partisan and largely off-base with reality, as I pointed out above.

  20. 23

    GBS spews:

    Rick D. @21:

    Do you even know how Roe v. Wade was settled?

    I’ll save us both the time: it was a 4th amendment right to priviacy issue. The last thing we Liberals want it BIG government running our personal lives. What a transpires between a doctor and a patient is of no business of the government. So said the SCOTUS.

    Now, I’ve answered your question in the realm of a compelling legal interst within the framework of the Constitution.

    Your turn.

    BTW don’t twist it again, just answer the damn question if you can.

    BTW, BTW I’m no lawyer either but I try my best to understand the Constitution and my rights. That way I know when someone is trying to take them away from me and my fellow citzens.

    OK, really your turn. Give us the brilliant compellign legal arguement to limit the rights of homosexual citzens like Hitler did.

  21. 24

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    GBS: Puddy doing fine. Watch it though you used “nigger”. Steve will lose another load in his shorts. When Puddy brought up Robert KKK # Sheets Grand Kleagle Byrd told the world there are white niggers (you know who they are among the HA weasels) he pizzed his pants too.

    Cynical wasn’t invited then but he may take you up on showing his stock trades offer to meet you. Puddy told him you are Democratic Demented but otherwise a kool kat. He’s worried you’ll blab some confidential stuff. Be a good Seal and keep it mum. He may surprise you!

    BTW the taqueria bus was good food. You surprised me GBS. stillbentover won’t come into the hood. Puddy bets most HA weasels won’t come into the hood. Many are skeeeeeeeered to meet me at DL to discuss W2s and 1040s. They called Puddy bat shit crazy and other stupid epithets. So Puddy again called them out. They run with their tails betwixt their legs. Well I guess having prehensile tails can come handy other ways.

  22. 25

    GBS spews:

    Puddybud at 20:

    When two hetro couples get married does the government venture in to their personal lives trying to find out if they will or will not have children?

    Since when has it become compulsory for two peopel to procreate as a condition of marriage?

    Go!

  23. 26

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    GBS, hetero couples have the chance to procreate. Puddy didn’t bring the government into the argument. Puddy just answered your question using your comment in reverse. It’s you honkies/howlies who’ll be the new minority when my children are planning for their children’s college. Have you looked at the European white man demographics lately?

    BTW you didn’t answer my other question.

    Go! BRB gotta take out the clueless wonder (garbage) now.

  24. 27

    Steve spews:

    @18 “Puddybud is one big black Mo’Fo’ and I doubt most people on this blog would want to mix it up with him.”

    And Bruce Lee was just a shrimp. If alive, I’m sure he’d have run from Puddy. Size counts, sure, but it’s not the determining factor.

    “If memory serves correctly Mr. Cynical wouldn’t show up in Rainier Valley to meet us.”

    Now that’s fucking funny.

    “he’s a real good guy. Just not in his right mid when it comes to politics”

    I also believe that he’s actually a real good guy. I mean that sincerely. But he is also deserving of the rash of shit I send his way for being the latter.

    “I know which one of your knees is the bum one”

    Ah, c’mon, GBS, which one is it? That knowledge just might come in handy if Puddy and I have that lunch one day and he gets out of hand.

  25. 28

    GBS spews:

    Puddybud,
    Glad to hear you’re doing good. How’s your son doing in college? And your pretty wife? Who, for whatever reason, has terrible judgment when it comes to the looks of men.

    Hey, you know me, I’ll drop a “nigger” bomb whenever and wherever I deem it’s appropriate. I know when it’s acceptable and when it’s not. And, I also have history telling Libs on this blog to back off when needed as well. So I’m in good standing.

    AND BULL SHIT MR. C wasn’t invited. I personally invited him back then. You know and I KNOW white folk don’t like getting to that part of Seattle. Shiiiiiiit, I wasn’t 100% certain you’d show. Obviously, it doesn’t bother me.

  26. 29

    Steve spews:

    @25 “GBS, hetero couples have the chance to procreate.”

    That little Puddy Factoid will blow away the 90 year old couple I know that just got married.

  27. 30

    GBS spews:

    Sorry Steve, I cannot tell you which one is the bum knee. I doubt it’s not weak any more. Puddy’s been doing squats with weights to strengthen his knee. But, if you like playing poker you ought to be able figure out the odds.

    I don’t disagree with you, he deserves a ration of shit for his illogical spew. So give it to him.

    I just didn’t like the shit talk that was going on about his wife. That’s where I draw the line and take his back.

    Bruce Lee was small and he wouldn’t have run from Puddy. But Puddy is big and he’s from a large east coast city, he’s got a little of the ghetto left in him.

    You know what they say, “You can take the brother out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the brother.”

    By all means have lunch with him someday. You won’t be disappointed.

  28. 31

    Rick D. spews:

    I’ll save us both the time: it was a 4th amendment right to priviacy issue.

    Ummm, so your “right to privacy” trumps the constitutional clause of “right to LIFE..” Interesting illogic there. This is where your argument goes awry, GBS. You’d like to justify abortion, while touting the (nonexistent) right to “gay marriage”, but you cannot do so without bending the principles of logic.

    The last thing we Liberals want it BIG government running our personal lives.

    …then why do you need to ask their permission to call it “gay marriage”, when civil unions offer you all of the entitlements except “the title”?
    This is about gays being so insecure with themselves that the victory is lost in the semantics, to which I say, Grow up.

    BTW I’m no lawyer either but I try my best to understand the Constitution and my rights. That way I know when someone is trying to take them away from me and my fellow citzens.

    Once again, you reference a Constitutional right when one doesn’t exist. The only twisting of reality is coming from your end, GBS. As I stated above, you have all the legal avenues to take on your quixotic quest to attain “rights” you already enjoy. So where’s the problem again?

    …..but, by all means, keep charging at the windmills.

  29. 32

    Steve spews:

    @27 “You know and I KNOW white folk don’t like getting to that part of Seattle.”

    True to a degree. I grew up there and still hang out there. I used to play in a mixed-race house band (I was the white guy) at a club called the African Hut on Rainier, the old Chalet Tavern, back in the 60’s. I kept a sawed-off shotgun in a home-made holster under my jacket (black leather!) as trying to get paid after the 2:00AM closing was when the adventure really began. It took me deep into places white folks just don’t go. I was also telling Puddy that I was looking forward to telling him about the time I dropped in on some friend’s band practice up on 23rd back in the summer of 1969 and inadvertently crashed a Black Panther party and lived to tell about it. No big deal, really, as most of those guys were my friends, though not all. I admit to some nervousness when the party broke up. Countless tales to tell. One that comes to mind is that I initiated the first black soul and funk concert by some black musician friends at the Seward Park amphitheater, also back in 1969. Next thing you know, blacks took over the park. It was like it changed overnight. Most whites were afraid to go there after that.

    I think Puddy and I could be friends. We’d just have to kiss and make up, then transcend the political divide.

  30. 33

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    For the record GBS ain’t no shrinking violet either. Puddy thinks Puddy had you by an inch or 1.5 inches. Height that is.

    Puddy wouldn’t show in the hood? Shirley you jest GBS. GBS, Puddy’ll take you to downtown Watts or better yet the west side of Philly, where Puddy is from.

    Illogical spew GBS? Shirley you jest. We both know where Puddy stands on my peeps and inner city issues. Many of these HA weasels are such chickens. And GBS notice Puddy didn’t say he’d compare W2s and 1040s with you. Puddy knows better and what you do!

    BTW both sons are in university. Draining the Puddy funds every month. Puddy will tell them you asked. How is your son the dentist doing?

  31. 34

    GBS spews:

    Tsk, tsk, tsk. Puddy, Puddy, Puddy.

    I’m deeply disappointed. Where’s the political acumen tonight?

    Have I been away too long? Has my absence dulled your intelligence?

    I wanted to give a pass to your veiled threat regarding the coming demographic change in this country, but since you brought it up twice I can’t let it go unchallenged. It truly saddens me to my core to think that people of color who endured so much savagery, brutality and injustice, who fought so hard for equality and justice would finally enter the Promised Land that Dr. King envisioned just to lay waste the rights and justice of others.

    Do you really mean that as a compelling legal argument? “Gay people you’re going to suffer because there will be more people of color who will disregard human dignity to make you unequal?” Really? Is that honestly it? Makes you wonder why all those Americans fought, bled and died. If we are to give words to the meaning that “living free is worth dying for” then this cannot be an honest point by you.

    I brought the government into the argument because if we’re going to pass laws that restrict our fellow citizens rights, then the inclusion of government in our discussion is a must. And, if government must be a part of the dialogue then a compelling legal interest for the state to limit rights of citizens is a must. If you are unable or unwilling to present a legal case then you have no case at all.

  32. 35

    Steve spews:

    @29 “I just didn’t like the shit talk that was going on about his wife.”

    I’ll attack Puddy without mercy. I don’t think I’ve ever said anything about his wife. If I did then I obviously went too far and would sincerely apologize. Same goes with his kids. In fact, since one of them has taken up bass, I’ve occasionally wondered if I’d ever get the chance to share a few bass licks. I can still do that funky shit as good as anybody.

    James Brown, Cold Sweat, Parts 1 and 2, key of D, first three notes D-D-C, “Da-Dah-Da!” Oh, how I love that old time funk. “Move on over and let Cush solo!”

  33. 36

    Richard Pope spews:

    “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by the National Organization for Marriage”.

    Sincerely,
    You Tube

  34. 37

    Don Joe spews:

    RD @ 30

    Ummm, so your “right to privacy” trumps the constitutional clause of “right to LIFE..”

    Can you point to the explicit text on the Constitution that defines a fetus as a “person” under the law? Or are we only allowed to be literalistic when it suits our particular rhetorical ends?

    Once again, you reference a Constitutional right when one doesn’t exist.

    Search the web for “equal protection clause,” and tell us what you find.

  35. 38

    Steve spews:

    @32 “Puddy’ll take you to downtown Watts or better yet the west side of Philly”

    And I’ll take Puddy to East Palo Alto, where Steve found a home away from home. No one knew me when I first showed up. There’s no carryover, and you know what I mean. It didn’t mean shit where I had come from or what I had done previously. I had to earn my place anew, one new friend at a time.

  36. 39

    GBS spews:

    Rick D. spews:

    I’ll save us both the time: it was a 4th amendment right to privacy issue.

    Ummm, so your “right to privacy” trumps the constitutional clause of “right to LIFE..” Interesting illogic there. This is where your argument goes awry, GBS. You’d like to justify abortion, while touting the (nonexistent) right to “gay marriage”, but you cannot do so without bending the principles of logic.

    Rick, our right to privacy is secured by the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. That’s makes the Constitutional argument valid.

    The principle of the 14th amendment gives equal protection under the law.

    Civil Unions are not equally enforced in all 50 states limiting rights of gay couples.

    You have yet to present the argument for a compelling legal interest for the state to single out and limit the rights of group of Americans that are enjoyed by others.

    One principle you fail to understand is that the burden of proof is on you, not me. Whenever the stat is to limit the right of a citizen the burden of proof always lies with the state and not the citizen.

    Now, present your case. Please. If you can.

  37. 41

    GBS spews:

    Puddy,

    Normally, I don’t like bragging but, my son is No.1 in his bio-chemistry class and in the upper 2% of his class. Booo yahhhh.

    He’s smart. I’m a smart ass. Obviously, he gets his brains from his mother.

    Yeah, he’s draining GBS funds, too.

  38. 42

    GBS spews:

    Steve, I wasnt’ referencing you about the comments to Puddy about his wife. That was someone else.

  39. 44

    Steve spews:

    @23 “GBS: Puddy doing fine. Watch it though you used “nigger”. Steve will lose another load in his shorts. When Puddy brought up Robert KKK # Sheets Grand Kleagle Byrd told the world there are white niggers (you know who they are among the HA weasels) he pizzed his pants too.”

    Oh, come on, Puddy, don’t put spin on that. GBS can read those posts for himself. My issue with you was the way you didn’t smack down Troll for calling blacks niggers. Really now, would it have hurt you to have done that?

    As for this “white nigger” thing, maybe we have a west coast – east coast disconnect going on here. I was repeatedly called a white nigger by whites for hanging with blacks. My black friends simply call me a nigger. “Hey nigger!” “Damned straight, bro, cuz my ass is blacker than yours! Now let me tell you about yo mama…” Truly, Puddy, it wouldn’t have occurred to me in a million years to call a white who hates blacks a white nigger.

  40. 47

    Rick D. spews:

    Don Joe @ 36:
    Can you point to the explicit text on the Constitution that defines a fetus as a “person” under the law? Or are we only allowed to be literalistic when it suits our particular rhetorical ends?

    A Person to our founders was “self evident”. The constitutional language is “life”, which the last time I checked ‘fetal’ was a stage on that journey.
    As for a legal case that recognizes a ‘fetus’ under the law, you may want to brush up on the Laci Petersen case (and many others like it) where the killer of the pregnant woman was charged also with killing the unborn, yet viable fetal life within.

    Do women go to the doctor to have their ultrasound and check-ups say “how’s my fetus doing today?”. No, they refer to that mass of human tissue and human organs as a viable human life, as do most sane people walking this earth, with a few exceptions.

    GBS:
    You have yet to present the argument for a compelling legal interest for the state to single out and limit the rights of group of Americans that are enjoyed by others.

    Once again, we apparently are onto the abortion issue, which I’m sure you’d agree, the ‘right to life’, in most persons opinion anyway, should take precedent over the ‘right to privacy’. Otherwise, you could, using the same ‘right to privacy’, defend the actions of the woman who left her 1 yr old child to die in the vehicle while she went to work and/or the right of the father last week to kill his 5 children because the mother deserted the family- both have been charged in a court of law by the way, so no, the privacy clause does not supercede the life clause.

    Unfortunately for Steve, GBS, et al they can’t argue this both ways with respect to the Constitution.

  41. 49

    Steve spews:

    @42 Love that!

    Slight detour here, my black friends parents were the ones who turned us on to be-bop by sharing their record collection with us. Changed my life! I just remembered how blessed I was to catch my one of favorites, Gene “Brother Jug” Ammons’ last performance at a club on 27th and Welton in Denver back in 1973 or so, just a couple weeks before he died. I suppose because I’m white, they sat me in front of the stage under the lights. I reckon they knew what they were doing. The Jug was spitting his sax on me all night! 27th and Welton was the heart of the black area of Denver that Kerouac wrote about in “On the Road”, the passage which was quoted by Eldridge Cleaver in “Soul on Ice”. How could I have forgotten that one??

  42. 50

    Chris Stefan spews:

    @46
    So at what point do you draw the line? Conception? How does that work? A couple of dividing cells is no more a “life” than drop of blood on the floor would be.

    I mean if “life” begins at conception, why stop there? Why isn’t every sperm cell and egg a “life”? By that logic every masturbator is committing mass murder.

  43. 51

    Don Joe spews:

    RD @ 46

    A Person to our founders was “self evident”.

    In other words, you’re a Constitutional literalist only when it’s convenient to be one.

    As for a legal case that recognizes a ‘fetus’ under the law, you may want to brush up on the Laci Petersen case.

    Why? This is a constitutional question, not a question of whether or not state legislatures have the power and authority to specify punishments for killing a fetus regardless of the “personhood” of the fetus.

    I also notice that you’re no longer even attempting to argue the issue of equal protection of the law and the right to same-sex marriage. I guess we’ll have to assume that you concede the point.

  44. 52

    Steve spews:

    @46 Damn, Rick, that was a good post. I disagree, of course, but I really respect the way you put that out there. More of that and we could find ourselves having some very interesting conversations. Unfortunately, I have to run right now. Later.

  45. 55

    Don Joe spews:

    @ 48

    Slight detour here, my black friends parents were the ones who turned us on to be-bop by sharing their record collection with us. Changed my life!

    Oh, be-bop. I grew up in a mid-sized upper midwest city known more for its football team and its toilet paper than its culture. I hadn’t a clue until Dizzy Gillespie played at St. Norbert’s College. A friend of mine dragged me back stage after the show. Talk about changing your life…

  46. 56

    Chris Stefan spews:

    GBS: Cynical was afraid to go to the taco bus? Seriously?

    Is there anything that even qualifies as “the hood” in the Northwest? In all my years of living, working, or traveling through what some considered “bad neighborhoods” in Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland including in the late 80’s/early 90’s when Hilltop, the South End/CD, and parts of PDX were much sketchier I’ve had exactly two problems. I was once mugged in the U-District 20 years ago and I was assaulted by a crazy homeless person in Pioneer Square about 10 years ago.

  47. 57

    Rick D. spews:

    Don Joe:
    I also notice that you’re no longer even attempting to argue the issue of equal protection of the law and the right to same-sex marriage.

    You’ll have to show me that “right to same-sex marriage” (your words remember?)clause within the Constitution, Don Joe, I seemed to have overlooked where that particular phrasing was guaranteed within the document so feel free to point it out to me.

    While you’re at it, show me any constitutional “right to marriage” contained in the document, whether that be man/woman- man/man- Steve/Goat-etc. that is guaranteed in the document.

    These matters are up to the states to decide and they’ve done so (and…I might add are subject to change by legislation or referendum). Instead of whining about rights gays already have in many states through civil unions, the real travesty is the genocide occuring everyday by the evil act of abortion and has been decided upon by the SCOTUS and is not even up for discussion within the realm of states rights.

    As I told GBS, Obama and Biden even oppose gay marriage so quit whining about the right restricting your “rights” when there is no such right that exists.

  48. 58

    Don Joe spews:

    RD @ 56

    You’ll have to show me that “right to same-sex marriage” (your words remember?)clause within the Constitution, Don Joe, I seemed to have overlooked where that particular phrasing was guaranteed within the document so feel free to point it out to me.

    So, you’re a Constitutional literalist again? How convenient.

    Though, actually there is a literalist interpretation that guarantees the right of same-sex marriage. I believe I’ve already mentioned the “equal protection” clause. Why didn’t you bother to look it up?

    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.[emphasis added]

    If a state grants a right or protection under the law to some persons, the state must grant that right or protection to all persons unless the state has a compelling interest in not granting that right or protection to some minority group. Pretty simple idea, really.

  49. 59

    Rick D. spews:

    Don Joe @ 57
    …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.

    Don Joe: This has been adjudicated already in a court of law and upheld …satisfying the “due process” argument. Currently, Washington state statute prohibits “marriages” as follows:

    RCW 26.04.020
    Prohibited marriages.

    (1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:
    (a) When either party thereto has a wife or husband living at the time of such marriage;
    (b) When the husband and wife are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood computing by the rules of the civil law; or
    (c) When the parties are persons other than a male and a female.
    (2) It is unlawful for any man to marry his father’s sister, mother’s sister, daughter, sister, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter or sister’s daughter; it is unlawful for any woman to marry her father’s brother, mother’s brother, son, brother, son’s son, daughter’s son, brother’s son or sister’s son.
    (3) A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another jurisdiction is valid in this state only if the marriage is not prohibited or made unlawful under subsection (1)(a), (1)(c),or (2) of this section.

    As I’ve noted before, you can change it through legislation or by putting it before the people through a referendum. Given that you have every right of marriage that I have in this state, I’m still perplexed by the amount of whining about semantics of “union” and “marriage” that people put forth.

    It’s fairly petty if you ask me.

  50. 60

    Don Joe spews:

    RD @ 58

    This has been adjudicated already in a court of law and upheld …satisfying the “due process” argument.

    Well, that’s interesting, but the argument here is an “equal protection” argument, not a “due process” argument.

    Secondly, I know what Washington law states. The question is whether or not it’s constitutional under the “equal protection” clause, and, for that to be the case, there must be some compelling state interest.

    Which brings us back to the very first question GBS asked you. What’s the compelling state interest, here?

  51. 61

    Chris Stefan spews:

    @56
    Please see the full faith and credit clause as well as the due process and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

  52. 62

    Rick D. spews:

    Don Joe @ 59:
    Secondly, I know what Washington law states. The question is whether or not it’s constitutional under the “equal protection” clause, and, for that to be the case, there must be some compelling state interest.

    ..and as I stated above, the same could be argued for abortion. What is the compelling state interest for abdicating the “equal protection” clause on that issue? When does the Constitutional right to “privacy” trump the Constitutionally protected right to “life”?

    Also, since in the case of “gay marriage” we’re only talking about semantics (in Washington state anyway) rather than true discrimination, does it really matter what the language entails? You’ve got legal recourse to change it. So do it.

  53. 63

    Steve spews:

    @55 When my late best friend, a black guy from Detroit, came out here for the first time I took him on a tour of the city. At one point I said, “Now I’ll show you ‘da hood.” Just to fuck with him I drove down to Lake Washington Boulevard, down by Leschi. “Welcome to da hood, bro!” He was like, “WTF, man, this ain’t no hood!” “Oh yes it is!” Just then we drive by a black guy out raking leaves in the front yard of his waterfront home. You should have seen the jaw dropped expression on his face. “See, I told you so! This is da hood, bro!” “No way, motherfucker, that brother is working for a white man!” “No, no, I’m telling ya, this is da hood!”

    He moved here a few months later and spent the remaining years of his life living in Seattle. The best friend I’ve ever had and I miss him so very, very much.

    That doesn’t mean that there ain’t no “hood”. In some ways, Oakland, say, is no different than Seattle. It’s just that west coast cities aren’t like the east coast cities. Back in my day the “hood” was mostly centered around 23rd and Jackson, west on down towards Chinatown, south into Rainier Valley and Mt. Baker, with concentrations of poor minorities in the old WWII housing projects, even in the High Point housing project in what was then lily-white West Seattle. There’s another thing peculiar about Seattle and the region. Read about black history of this area and it’s readily apparent that the blacks who came here in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were cut from a very remarkable cloth. More blacks came here during the two world wars. They, too, seem to be cut from that same cloth. As one black friend said a few years ago, “We have a different kind of nigger coming here now.”

  54. 64

    Rick D. spews:

    60. Chris Stefan spews:

    @56
    Please see the full faith and credit clause as well as the due process and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    That was addressed @ 58, but I’ll highlight it again.

    RCW 26.04.020
    Prohibited marriages.
    (1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:
    (c) When the parties are persons other than a male and a female.
    (3) A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another jurisdiction is valid in this state only if the marriage is not prohibited or made unlawful under subsection (1)(a), (1)(c),or (2) of this section.

  55. 65

    Steve spews:

    Don Joe and Rick, this is a very good conversation you two are having – so much better than what usually goes down here between left and right. Kudos to both of you.

  56. 67

    Rick D. spews:

    Thanks Steve,

    and Thanks to Don Joe and Chris Stefan for a civil and lively debate. I’m up at 5am so I’m bailing for now. G’nite

  57. 68

    proud leftist spews:

    Rick D.
    I’m shocked, but you seem able to actually argue coherently. Where was that before? Abortion is hard because we disagree where “life” begins. I don’t believe it begins at conception. So, no rights attach at that time. My father and I disagree, respectfully, about abortion. Fetuses are not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is marriage. Assault weapons were not mentioned in the Constitution, nor was contraception. The beauty of the document is what we find in its interstices; it’s like the Bible. A living document. Original intent people insanely search for what can’t be found. The principles of the Constitution–which has been amended many times over, including, of course, the first 10 amendments, over which we argue so much–are what we must search for, to fill in the gaps that a constitution cannot.

  58. 69

    proud leftist spews:

    Steve,
    Do you still play a bit? Sounds like you did different stuff than I do, but bass players are great to come by if they can keep me on beat. I tend to want to pick up the tempo. I play guitar and banjo, country (leftist country) that leans toward Gram Parsons, Neil Young (when he’s doing country), and, more recently, Lucinda Williams sort of stuff. Or, just lay back and play some John Prine.

  59. 70

    Chris Stefan spews:

    @63
    Well I’m looking at it from a Federal Constitutional perspective, in which case what the state law says can be moot.

    Again look at the opinion from the SCOTUS in Loving v. Virgina for how due process and equal protection might apply.

    Some hypotheticals which could lead to some interesting court cases:
    1. A gay couple legally married in Massachusetts asserts a right of marriage under Federal law.
    2. A lesbian couple legally married in Connecticut moves to a state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage and attempts to assert a right of marriage.
    3. A gay couple married in Vermont has moved to Washington. They want a divorce and are denied by the state as they aren’t legally married according to state law.

    Not to mention any number of potentially interesting suits that might arise from the mess in California. Especially if the state attempts to rule same sex marriages made prior to the passage of prop 8 are invalid.

  60. 71

    proud leftist spews:

    69
    Your hypotheticals are what make constitutional law interesting. The answers are never easy, balancing is what is required. Constitutions are not statutes, though even statutes leave gaps which courts must fill. Constitutions, at least our Constitution, must proclaim fundamental principles. Then, in our system at least, judges decree what has been left unsaid, because perhaps unanticipated, by the Constitution. Imperfect, surely, but kind of beautiful in its own way.

  61. 72

    Chris Stefan spews:

    @70
    No doubt. Furthermore you can never be quite sure how the judges will rule, especially on the SCOTUS.

    It will be fun to watch heads explode if the SCOTUS decides in favor of allowing same-sex marrage, especially if it is a wider than 5-4 majority. Even more so if Scalia writes the majority opinion.

  62. 73

    Don Joe spews:

    RD @ 61

    [T]he same could be argued for abortion. What is the compelling state interest for abdicating the “equal protection” clause on that issue?

    Thought we’d already addressed that point. If the Constitution doesn’t define a fetus is a “person” under the law, the equal protection clause doesn’t apply.

    Also, since in the case of “gay marriage” we’re only talking about semantics (in Washington state anyway) rather than true discrimination, does it really matter what the language entails?

    First of all, the notion that this is merely a matter of semantics, even in Washington, is not true. There is a bill currently before the state legislature, and very likely to pass, that closes the gap considerably, but how can we be certain that we’ve enumerated all possible rights that accrue naturally to married couples?

    Second, in a variety of contexts and starting with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, the US Supreme Court has ruled that “separate” is inherently unequal, and for precisely the reason I cited above. How can we know that the existing law covers all possible rights? Isn’t it simpler to just strike the portion of the law that prohibits marriage between two persons of the same sex?

    Lastly, there is at least one right that the current law cannot accommodate regardless of what laws are passed regarding any other rights. There are a number of religious organizations, Unitarian Universalists and some Lutheran churches come readily to mind, that are quite willing to perform marriage rites for same-sex couples. Washington state law, even under the proposed changes for same-sex couples, still does not grant same-sex couples the right to have these marriages recognized under the law.

    All of this brings us back to the question of a compelling state interest, and I feel it important to point out that homophobia is not a compelling state interest. So what compelling state interest exists for not recognizing marriage between couples of the same sex? Can there be any?

  63. 74

    Rick D. spews:

    Don Joe @ 72:

    Thought we’d already addressed that point. If the Constitution doesn’t define a fetus is a “person” under the law, the equal protection clause doesn’t apply.

    Using that same logic, it also doesn’t define a “marriage” under the law [See the 2nd paragraph from the bottom]. Therefore, the equal protection clause doesn’t apply, or am I making too much sense here?

    Conversely, Since most fetuses are, in fact, viable human life as anyone that has observed an ultrasound can attest, why would that not meet the definition of a “person” guaranteed “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”? Case law has determined in a plethora of cases similar to the one I gave above where Scott Petersen was charged with first degree murder the killing of his wife laci and second degree for their still unborn baby Connor.
    That is a recognition of life, at least in legal terms, wouldn’t you agree?

    First of all, the notion that this is merely a matter of semantics, even in Washington, is not true.

    How so? name a privelege they are not extended with a civil parnership in this state.

    There is a bill currently before the state legislature, and very likely to pass, that closes the gap considerably, but how can we be certain that we’ve enumerated all possible rights that accrue naturally to married couples?

    Where is this mythical “right to marry” guaranteed by a federal document?

    Remember the words:
    “By the powers invested in me by the state of [insert name here], I now pronounce you, man and wife”
    A few questions for the pro gay marriage folks:

    Is the marriage license granted by State X or by the district of Washington D.C.?

    Do we go to a federal courthouse to obtain the document or to the county courthouse?

    Are the powers granted to recognize a given marriage granted by the state or by a federal entity?

    Of course, the answer is simple, the state grants these rights onto its citizens, not the federal government. The individual states define what a “marriage” is under state law and in our state’s case, defines what “prohibited marriages” are as well [contained in post @ 58].

    Which means the issue of recognizing “gay marriages” does not meet the criteria under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution as it is not defined in the document. Therefore, without a federal definition, it is left up to the states to decide, which is always the best approach anyway in my opinion.

  64. 75

    Steve spews:

    @68 Actually, I started out by studying violin as a kid. I was lucky, my instructer being the foremost teacher in the region, Verna Powell, who would take on only three students at a time. A poor kid, it was made possible by my grade school principal paying for my violin, and a Christian organization, Lutheran Family and Child Services, paying for the lessons. That all came to an end shortly after my Mom died.

    Although trained in classical, I was exposed to rock, soul and country growing up in the 50’s and 60’s. KJR, KYAC and darned if I can remember the call letters of Seattle’s country station. Living in Colorado in the 70’s I was turned on to outlaw country, later bluegrass. Later still, I became fascinated by the popular music of the 30’s and 40’s. Gershwin, Berlin, Garland, Sinatra, and the rest. I love it all. I took up bass in the mid 60’s at high school age, when a local rock band’s bass player was drafted. I dropped out of the Seattle band scene about five years later. I still keep in touch with a few folks and we dink around. These days I have a home recording studio set up. There’s amazing studio products available now. Walk in my front door and your confronted with a B3/Leslie 122, Tama drum kit, upright bass, Motif, two classical guitars and a half dozen electric guitars and basses, amps, and a few mic stands. The dining room table is covered with recording gear. It’s a hobby that’s become rather hard to hide.

  65. 76

    Don Joe spews:

    RD @ 73

    Using that same logic, it also doesn’t define a “marriage” under the law [See the 2nd paragraph from the bottom]. Therefore, the equal protection clause doesn’t apply, or am I making too much sense here?

    Sorry, you’re making no sense whatsoever:

    Conversely, Since most fetuses are, in fact, viable human life…

    That is, in fact, not true. Most fetuses don’t become viable human life until somewhere in the second trimester. This is exactly the point of distinction that Roe v Wade draws. Personhood, under the law, begins when the fetus becomes viable.

    You’re positing some other definition of “personhood” without any legal justification for doing so. Stare decisis applies.

    States may not define “personhood” for their own purposes. We wouldn’t, for example, allow states to define “persons” to mean only white, male landowners. To allow states to redefine “personhood” at their whims would completely gut the entire XIVth Amendment to the Constitution. States could infringe upon all manner fundamental rights for minorities simply by declaring that these minorities are not “persons” under the law.

    Note, also, that the Lacy Peterson case does not involve a state redefining personhood. States have all the power and authority to make the killing of an unborn fetus any manner of crime they like without redefining “personhood”. States do not, for example, have to define “personhood” to include spotted owls in order to make killing one of them a crime. They can even go so far, if they choose to, as to declare the killing of a spotted owl the equivalent of second-degree manslaughter. Redefining “personhood” is not a necessary condition for any of these laws.

    Where is this mythical “right to marry” guaranteed by a federal document?

    It’s not, and that’s not the argument. I’m not sure where you get the idea that it is. However, we do both agree that:

    Of course, the answer is simple, the state grants these rights onto its citizens, not the federal government.

    Precisely. States grant legal rights to their citizens. On this, we are in total agreement.

    Which means the issue of recognizing “gay marriages” does not meet the criteria under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution as it is not defined in the document.

    Come again? The equal protection clause is explicit and entirely on point. No state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    If you agree that states grant the right to marry, which you’ve just stated in the paragraph I quoted above, then the equal protection clause says that states must grant that right to all citizens equally unless there is a compelling state interest for not doing so.

    Lastly:

    [N]ame a privelege they are not extended with a civil parnership in this state.

    First, there are some 300 specific rights and privileges that are not granted under current law, which is why there is pending legislation designed specifically to grant those rights.

    Second, I just named another right in the penultimate paragraph of my comment 72–a right that has First Amendment, freedom of religion implications. Am I writing too many words, here?

  66. 77

    GBS spews:

    What Rick D. fails to understand about the Constitution is that there are fewer instances of “specific” rights guaranteed than there are general principles of liberty and rights that are guaranteed. In those instances that are specific words such as “Shall” are used. In other instances, such as the 4th Amendment words like “unreasonable” are used. Define unreasonable. But, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL not be INFRINGED. Pretty specific and it doesn’t need a legal scholar to figure out its limited, yet powerful meaning.

    The point is this, the Constitution comprises mostly principles and ideals. The on of the greatest tools given to us by our Founding Fathers was not “what to think” but “how to think.” The framework in which the legislative branch deliberates, the rules of order, how the judicial branch works. All within a framework of how to debate unforeseen issues, given the principles of the laws.

    There’s no specific wording in the Constitution about wiretapping a cell phone. Does that mean the government has free reign to listen to every cell phone cover station just because?

    No.

    The principle of being secure “in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,” Where’s the cell phone?

    Furthermore, if the counter argument from you is that we’re dealing in semantics between marriage and civil unions, then what’s the problem on your end that you have to legislate that they cannot be married? It’s just simple wording, right?

    Additionally, to your state’s right argument, in 1967 there were 16 states that outlawed interracial marriages. Do you believe that they have the right to prevent a black person and a white person from marrying?

    If not, why not?

    And, in the same why people cannot control the color of their skin, they cannot control the formation of their genitalia. So when that “chemistry” sparks between two consenting, legal adults and they fall in love with each other what is the states compelling legal interest to prevent them from marrying?

    Again, Rick D., with all due respect to you because you have been respectful in your tone and you’ve brought up good points about other issues, albeit off topic, please present your argument as to why the state has a compelling legal interest to limit marriage to just a man and a woman and not between two legal, consenting adults?

  67. 78

    proud leftist spews:

    Steve @ 74
    I’ve been told there is some great home recording equipment now. I have refrained from purchasing any as I do not need yet another distraction. Your front room sounds like a real playground. I have my instruments strewn around the house, per wife’s command. I believe I have reached that critical mass with regard to stringed instruments that I can add to the collection without anyone else noticing. That can be helpful when household budgetary issues arise.

  68. 79

    Rick D. spews:

    Don Joe @ 72:
    If the Constitution doesn’t define a fetus is a “person” under the law, the equal protection clause doesn’t apply.

    Rick D. @ 73:
    Using that same logic, [the Constitution] also doesn’t define a “marriage” under the law. Therefore, the equal protection clause doesn’t apply…

    Don Joe @ 75:
    Sorry, you’re making no sense whatsoever:

    How does that not make any sense to you? You give me literalism when it comes to abortion and then expect a wide birth of interpretation when it comes to granting “gay marriage” within the document that doesn’t exist. I believe that is called being hoisted upon ones own petard.

    This is exactly the point of distinction that Roe v Wade draws. Personhood, under the law, begins when the fetus becomes viable.

    I would assume this means your are against partial birth abortions then, right?

    You’re positing some other definition of “personhood” without any legal justification for doing so. Stare decisis applies.

    I just gave you an example of a legal justification above.The courts in California have deemed Connor Petersen to have been a “person” whose life was taken and the person responsibile was charged with 2nd degree murder. Thus, there is legal precedent. This is not the case with “gay marriage” which has no legal justification under federal law and has been prohibited by states and upheld in the courts under…Stare decisis. My advice? Punt

    States may not define “personhood” for their own purposes. We wouldn’t, for example, allow states to define “persons” to mean only white, male landowners. To allow states to redefine “personhood” at their whims would completely gut the entire XIVth Amendment to the Constitution.

    Then explain how the states can legally prosecute, bring to trial and sentence persons found to have been responsibile for the death of an unborn fetus. You’re making no sense with that statement above, as there are plenty of case laws to refute it.

    States could infringe upon all manner fundamental rights for minorities simply by declaring that these minorities are not “persons” under the law.

    False. The civil rights act of 1964 would federally uphold this from happening. As the Roe v Wade decision would prevent any state to restrict abortions within its jurisdiction. You’re batting a solid 0 for 4 so far today, Don Joe.

    States grant legal rights to their citizens. On this, we are in total agreement.

    And they can also restrict them, as is the case currently with “prohibited marriages” RCW I referenced @ 58. If you don’t like it, change it through…legislation or referendum. How come some of you supporters don’t get off your asses and put it to the people through the ballot box if you want it to change. The state giveth and the state taketh away.

    The equal protection clause is explicit and entirely on point. No state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    The State courts have disagreed. Tell it to the judge.

    If you agree that states grant the right to marry, which you’ve just stated in the paragraph I quoted above, then the equal protection clause says that states must grant that right to all citizens equally unless there is a compelling state interest for not doing so.

    Apparently, the state has determined that there is no compelling reason for incestuous relationships, bigamy or same sex marriage. If you’re consistant in your argument, you would feel all of these are equally discrimated under the “equal protection” as well, Correct?

    First, there are some 300 specific rights and privileges that are not granted under current law, which is why there is pending legislation designed specifically to grant those rights.

    hmmm 300? I doubt that. Link please.

    Second, I just named another right in the penultimate paragraph of my comment 72–a right that has First Amendment, freedom of religion implications. Am I writing too many words, here?

    Actually, I think you’re confusing yourself with your pretzel logic.

  69. 80

    Domestic Parter with Child spews:

    I’d like the right to marry my partner. But given the choice to be married or have kids, I’d rather have kids and live together. It’s already/still legal for gay couples to adopt in this state.

    Why is it that gay couples with kids is less inflammatory than gay marriage?

  70. 81

    proud leftist spews:

    RickD: “Apparently, the state has determined that there is no compelling reason for incestuous relationships, bigamy or same sex marriage. If you’re consistant in your argument, you would feel all of these are equally discrimated under the “equal protection” as well, Correct?”

    The constitutional analysis you criticize is precisely the way federal courts approach equal protection issues. If a state denies a fundamental right (and federal courts long ago deemed the right to marry as a fundamental right) to one person that it grants another person, then the state must articulate a compelling state interest for such discrimination. Does the “compelling state interest” analysis sometimes involve a bit of squishiness, some inherent value judgment? Sure, because judges are human. With regard to incest, it’s rather easy to identify a compelling state interest in prohibiting siblings from marrying–aside from problems associated with procreation, there is a vast communal consensus that incest (to some degree or another) is wrong. With regard to bigamy among consenting adults, the argument gets a little harder. Does the compelling state interest analysis open itself up to charges that shifting mores can impact constitutional rights? Yup, that’s the way it is and ever shall be. Live with it.

  71. 82

    Don Joe spews:

    RD @ 78

    How does that not make any sense to you?

    Your argument conflates the definition of personhood with the definition of rights. These are not the same thing.

    You give me literalism when it comes to abortion…

    How so? I’ve argued that literalism does not work when it comes to abortion, so how can you say that I’ve “given” you literalism when it comes to abortion?

    I’m perfectly comfortable with the notion that “personhood” can be defined by case law in ways that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Indeed, I’ve pointed to exactly the case law that defines personhood.

    I would assume this means your are against partial birth abortions then, right?

    Why should I be opposed to “partial birth” abortions in cases where the fetus is not yet viable? Whatever does the exact nature of the procedure have to do with the concept of “personhood”?

    Then explain how the states can legally prosecute, bring to trial and sentence persons found to have been responsibile for the death of an unborn fetus.

    I gave just that explanation above. They simply pass laws making it illegal to kill a fetus. Passing those laws doesn’t change when a fetus becomes viable, which, in turn, doesn’t change the definition of “personhood”.

    How can the state legally prosecute, bring to trial, and sentence persons found to have been responsible for the death of a spotted owl? Replace “unborn fetus” with any other possible living thing, and you get the same answer.

    Are you arguing that any law that recognizes a fetus as “living” automatically recognizes a fetus as a “person”? If so, then your argument merely begs the question by ignoring quite a bit of Constitutional history where a “living human” was not considered a “person”.

    Indeed, the primary purpose of the XIVth Amendment was to redefine “personhood” in such a way that some living humans who had previously not be considered “persons” were now considered “persons”.

    I had pointed out that states may not redefine personhood, because allowing states to redefine personhood to suit their whims would allow for a variety of forms of discrimination that we would not find acceptable, to which RD replied:

    False. The civil rights act of 1964 would federally uphold this from happening.

    First of all, it’s not at all clear what it means to “uphold” something from happening. Seems “prevent” would be a far better word.

    Secondly, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was largely directed at private discrimination. Where the 1964 Civil Rights Act covers state action, the law is limited to voter registration, access to public facilities, schools and programs that receive Federal funds. If a state were to, for example, deny some minority group the right to own land, that would not be covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act in any way.

    As for the general meaning of the equal protection clause, RD asserts:

    The State courts have disagreed. Tell it to the judge.

    How so? Please cite case law. If you find anything in case law that doesn’t involve some form of “compelling state interest,” then let us know.

    Apparently, the state has determined that there is no compelling reason for incestuous relationships, bigamy or same sex marriage.

    This sentence makes no sense whatsoever within the context of this discussion. We can certainly cite compelling state interests for denying both bigamy and incestuous relationships. The fact that we can cite such compelling state interests doesn’t sweep away the central question of this discussion, and a question which you have assiduously avoided. Where is the compelling state interest for denying same-sex couples the right to marry?

    Now, for a bit of house-keeping:

    mmm 300? I doubt that. Link please.

    The bill is SB 5688, and the Seattle PI summarizes it here.

    I asked, “Am I writing too many words, here?,” to which RD replied:

    Actually, I think you’re confusing yourself with your pretzel logic.

    Well, I am a Steely Dan fan, and I’ve never meet Napoleon, but that doesn’t explain why you have, in two successive posts, completely ignored entire portions of my comments. If you want to claim that my logic is contorted, then I’d suggest you actually address some of the points that I’ve raised rather than ignoring them entirely.

  72. 83

    Rick D. spews:

    Don Joe @ 82 :
    Well, I am a Steely Dan fan, and I’ve never meet Napoleon, but that doesn’t explain why you have, in two successive posts, completely ignored entire portions of my comments.

    As you have mine. I’ve illustrated how “gay marriage” does not fall under the jurisdiction of a federally protected right, you’ve failed to show where it does.
    The equal protection clause is not abridged because any man or woman IS allowed to marry, they’re just limited to the opposite sex as partners by the states, which is a good thing for our Republic.
    This is also the case for persons wanting to marry their sister, mother, daughter, the twins next door, their dog, etc. These are all examples of limitations placed upon individuals as the individuals states have done.

    Don’t like it? Do the hard lifting to change it. Debating with me all day in a blog isn’t doing your cause any good, and I really don’t have the time to continue beating this dead horse to death, especially when my points are ignored and yours are propped up with faulty logic.

    If you want to claim that my logic is contorted, then I’d suggest you actually address some of the points that I’ve raised rather than ignoring them entirely.

    I’ve done so on almost every point. The fact that you’ve chosen to discard them on merit because it doesn’t fit the constructs of your argument is not for me to reconcile.

    Good luck chasing your tail

  73. 84

    Don Joe spews:

    RD @ 63

    I’ve illustrated how “gay marriage” does not fall under the jurisdiction of a federally protected right.

    Congratulations. You’ve demonstrated the truth of a fact not subject to controversy. What’s next? Are you going to prove that the grass is green? How about the color of the sky?

    The equal protection clause is not abridged because any man or woman IS allowed to marry, they’re just limited to the opposite sex as partners.

    A fascinating new argument, but one that is equivocal nonetheless. We all have the right to marry people with whom we have absolutely no interest in marrying? Thanks for nothing.

    I really don’t have the time to continue beating this dead horse to death.

    Fine. See ya. Just one last thing:

    I’ve done so on almost every point.

    Claiming victory for yourself while also claiming that you don’t have the time to continue is, at best, incoherent. Claiming victory with a bald assertion about points supposedly not addressed is disingenuous. Either bow out gracefully, or don’t bow out at all.

  74. 85

    Steve spews:

    I saw on an earlier thread that Rick lamented to Don Joe about how there was no real debate taking place here at HA. Then the two of you proceed to have what’s likely the finest discussion/debate I’ve ever seen during my time here. Neither of you have let this discussion deteriorate much at all, even though you both might be a little weary of this discussion. In this “cesspool” environment, that says a lot about the both of you.

    Like I said earlier, I may not agree with you, Rick, but I’m truly impressed with how you’re handling yourself in this discussion. Don Joe is a fine debater. I see now that you are too.

    You both set a great example for others, including myself, to follow. I now wonder if if the rest of us has what it takes to follow your lead.

  75. 86

    Domestic Parter with Child spews:

    Some points I can answer.
    Letting Gays get married doesn’t open the flood gates

    You cannot marry a dog because it’s not able to give consent.
    You cannot marry a minor because they are not consenting adults.
    I think the incest rules were put in place to avoid inbreeding. Gay people don’t have that problem.
    It’s not about procreation. Gay people don’t easily create kids but they can adopt or go through complicated routes, just like infertile couples.

    So how does a gay couple getting married threaten to destroy the Republic again?

  76. 87

    GBS spews:

    I just gave you an example of a legal justification above. The courts in California have deemed Connor Petersen to have been a “person” whose life was taken and the person responsible was charged with 2nd degree murder. Thus, there is legal precedent. This is not the case with “gay marriage” which has no legal justification under federal law and has been prohibited by states and upheld in the courts under…Stare decisis. My advice? Punt

    The problem with your argument here is that Connor Peterson was far advanced in the 3rd trimester, nearly 9 months if I remember correctly, and thus a viable human life that could live on it’s own outside the womb. If, what you were saying could be applied to a fetus in the first trimester you’d have a legal argument to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    The fact of the matter is that argument has no legal standing in court or it would have been used by now. The SCOTUS disagrees with your legal argument and thus no legal remedy for your cause.

    But, that’s beside the point, Rick D. what’s the states compelling legal interest to deny marriage between to two legal, consenting adults?

    Either present your clear argument or concede the fact that you can’t.

  77. 88

    GBS spews:

    I just copied and pasted this entire thread into a Word doc. Here’s what I found out:

    87 posts
    13,199 words
    And, not one of them presents a compelling legal argument why the state should limit the rights of one group of citizens afforded to other citizens.

    If the opponents of gay marriage had an irrefutable argument they would have made it by now. The fact that they are unwilling or unable to articulate those points speaks volumes to the lack of legal standing of their side has.

  78. 89

    Don Joe spews:

    GBS @ 87

    The problem with your argument here is that Connor Peterson was far advanced in the 3rd trimester, nearly 9 months if I remember correctly, and thus a viable human life that could live on it’s own outside the womb.

    While that is true, I think it detracts from the legal issue (which is why I didn’t raise it earlier).

    Nothing on the Constitution bars a state from defining “manslaughter” to include killing horses. It would a peculiar definition to be sure, but it would be a perfectly valid definition in terms of the law.

    That definition has no bearing on the question of personhood. Were a state to define manslaughter to include the killing of horses, that definition would not, then, require the state to grant horses, say, the right to vote.

  79. 90

    Chris Stefan spews:

    I’m not sure you can say marrage isn’t a Federally protected right. The Federal courts have recognized certain rights not enumerated in the Constitution as fundamental natural rights subject to protection.

    The right to marry and the right to have children are among those.

    See the SCOTUS opinion in Loving v. Virgina

  80. 91

    Steve spews:

    GBS, I’d rather the state was in the civil union biz and leave “marriage” to whatever definition people care to make as it would no longer have a legal basis with the state. This would seem to me to negate the argument the gay unions redefine marriage. If Lutherans or any other religion wants to maintain a man-woman definition of marriage or to change it, then fine. Gays can leave the church or work within the church to change the its definition of marriage without involving non-church members and the state. I spit this out in a hurry so it might not make the sense I hope it will.

  81. 92

    Rick D. spews:

    86. Domestic Parter with Child spews:
    So how does a gay couple getting married threaten to destroy the Republic again?

    One could ask why the term “marriage” must be usurped to a gay couple when (at least in this state), they’re afforded all of the priveleges of a marriage with the simple wording replaced of “union”. It’s really a distinction without a difference when you get down to brass tax the brass tax of it.
    Also, an interesting moniker….so where’s the problem?

    84. Don Joe spews:
    Congratulations. You’ve demonstrated the truth of a fact not subject to controversy. What’s next? Are you going to prove that the grass is green? How about the color of the sky?

    I’m sorry, I was under the impression that the subject was “gay marriage”. If it is not the subject of controversy what’s the problem? If you’re conceding the point that “gay marriage” is not a federally protected right, why the hell have we been going back and forth for 24 hours?

    A fascinating new argument, but one that is equivocal nonetheless. We all have the right to marry people with whom we have absolutely no interest in marrying? Thanks for nothing.

    Nothing new about it. You kept hinting that the “equal protection” clause was the infringement on a particular right. I merely stated what the courts have upheld to date that no infringement exists because people are entitled to marry the person of their choice, one man, one woman. Not Fred and his pet goat, Not Fred and his 20 year old daughter, Not Fred and Albert, and not Fred and the Bopsie Twins.

    Claiming victory for yourself while also claiming that you don’t have the time to continue is, at best, incoherent.

    Not really, you’ve stated your case and I’ve stated mine. Incoherent would be to keep rehashing the same tired arguments on both sides with little or no agreement in sight. Given that I have a life outside of the HA website, I value my time doing other things a little more productive than sitting at a keyboard.

    Claiming victory with a bald assertion about points supposedly not addressed is disingenuous. Either bow out gracefully, or don’t bow out at all.

    You’ll have to point out where I “claimed victory”, I seem to have missed that in re-reading my post for clarification. As for bowing out, Refer to the paragraph above. I simply don’t have unlimited time to rehash a position that is legally crystal clear to me, especially when the issue is allowed redress before the legislature and through a public referendum.

    On the abortion issue, no such redress exists.

  82. 93

    Steve spews:

    @92 Rick says, “the Bopsie Twins”

    I hadn’t heard of them in decades. But I believe it’s the “Bobbsey Twins”.

    “One could ask why the term “marriage” must be usurped to a gay couple when (at least in this state), they’re afforded all of the priveleges of a marriage with the simple caveat of “union”.”

    I have to admit, this one bothers me. I’d be more comfortable seeing gays trying to get the fed and the states to quit recognizing marriages and to instead recognize civil unions. Leave marriage to be defined by the individual or their church. Let the struggle be there. That leaves it to be none of my business.

  83. 94

    Domestic Parter with Child spews:

    I don’t care if you call it Marriage or Civil Union. But if you create a Civil Union class, will you then fight to change every legal contract from “marriage” to “marriage/civil union”? As in, a “the married/civil unioned widow gets pension rights” or “the spouse/domestic partner of a student gets the family discount” and “the spouse/domestic partner is responsible for half the community property and debts of a marriage/civil union…” and so.

    If you create a Civil Union class, do they automatically get all the privileges and responsibility that comes with marriage, or will we have to sue and wrangle for each and every single one, in every state, that married people get automatically?

    Can you see why most of us would rather just get married?

  84. 95

    GBS spews:

    Here is the reason Rick D., or any other conservative have REFUSED to articulate their case against limiting the rights of gays to enter into a marriage contract.

    It will be picked clean like piranhas in a feeding frenzy.

    They know it.

  85. 96

    Don Joe spews:

    RD @ 42

    If you’re conceding the point that “gay marriage” is not a federally protected right, why the hell have we been going back and forth for 24 hours?

    Well, because the equal protection clause applies to a variety of cases involving rights and privileges that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. You can’t sweep away more than a century of case law with a hand-wave.

    I believe I’ve already mentioned Brown v Board of Education. Do I have to cite still further relevant case law? Is there something about this argument that you don’t understand?

    You kept hinting that the “equal protection” clause was the infringement on a particular right.

    I’ve not “hinted” at all. I’ve stated explicitly that, where a state grants a right to one class of citizens, the state must grant that right to all citizens unless the state can show a compelling interest for not granting that right equally across all groups. Please do better than misrepresenting what I’ve said.

    I merely stated what the courts have upheld to date that no infringement exists because people are entitled to marry the person of their choice, one man, one woman.

    You’ve asserted this. I’ve asked you to cite case law where the question of equal protection has been applied to same-sex marriage, and none has been forthcoming. Indeed, there is no such case law to be found.

    You might want to check out Evan Gerstmann’s book, Same-sex Marriage and the Constitution. Gerstmann considers the arguments against same-sex marriage, and even finds them rational. What he does point out, however, is that such arguments are not likely to pass the “strict scrutiny” test that applies in equal protection cases.

    In short, this is an equal protection issue. Any effort you make to avoid addressing this question as an equal protection issue weakens your argument.

    You’ll have to point out where I “claimed victory”, I seem to have missed that in re-reading my post for clarification.

    Well, you claimed that I was confusing myself with my “pretzel logic,” and asserted that you’ve addressed every point I’ve raised all along (which, frankly, you haven’t; c.f. above regarding “equal protection”). Taken together, those statements constitute a claim of victory, because they deny any form of reasonableness to the alternate view.

    I simply don’t have unlimited time to rehash a position that is legally crystal clear to me

    Then the graceful way to bow out is to agree to disagree. It allows for a disagreement without declaring one position inherently superior over the other.

  86. 97

    Domestic Parter with Child spews:

    I found this…

    Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

    The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

    is that the best they got?

  87. 98

    Don Joe spews:

    @ 93

    I’d be more comfortable seeing gays trying to get the fed and the states to quit recognizing marriages and to instead recognize civil unions. Leave marriage to be defined by the individual or their church. Let the struggle be there. That leaves it to be none of my business.

    While that could be satisfactory on theoretical grounds, it has very practical problems with a variety of rights and privileges that have accrued to married couples over centuries of both statutory and common law. It’s not like we can simply do a global search for every instance of the terms “marriage” and “spouse” and replace them with “civil union” and “domestic partner” respectively.

  88. 99

    GBS spews:

    @ 94:

    BINGO!

    Marriage falls under the category of family law, but, because real property and assets are involved it is a form of contract law.

    AND, many provisions for contract law fall under federal law, which is governed by the Constitution.

    Once this happens it kills their last remaining argument.

  89. 100

    Rick D. spews:

    87. GBS spews:
    But, that’s beside the point, Rick D. what’s the states compelling legal interest to deny marriage between to two legal, consenting adults? Either present your clear argument or concede the fact that you can’t.

    Would you ban consenting adults such as brother-sister, Mother-son, Father-daughter from marrying as well? If not, you’re argument is entirely inconsistent. Apparently, because the states have deemed it necessary to do so through their statutes, same sex marriages have been prohibited. As I noted before, quit whining about it and pound the pavement to encourage public support for your cause and address it through a referendum. Also, if you haven’t been following, I’ve made some coherent arguments against gay marriage, mainly that the current makeup of laws in the 50 states prohibits such marriages. Therefore, the burden is on the pro-gay marriage side to state why the court has a “compelling legal reason” why they should revise already decided upon legislation.

  90. 101

    proud leftist spews:

    97: “The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.”

    The author you quote has the constitutional analysis precisely backward. When a state denies a fundamental right to one group which it grants another, the burden is on the state to justify such discrimination. And, as others above have pointed, the state’s burden is to show that a compelling state interest trumps the asserted right of the group discriminated against.

  91. 102

    GBS spews:

    Rick D. @ 100

    I asked you this earlier and you ignored it. Of all the comparions made so far this one is the closest to the debate we’re having.

    Is the ban on interracial marriages correct or not?

    Additionally, to your state’s right argument, in 1967 there were 16 states that outlawed interracial marriages. Do you believe that they have the right to prevent a black person and a white person from marrying?

    If not, why not?

  92. 103

    GBS spews:

    Rick D. @ 100

    Do you hear that **clicking** sound? That’s you out of ammo.

    When your argument boils down to “what’s next? Incest, child molestation and/or bestiality” it’s time to recognize you’re inserting your personal objection over equal rights for others.

    Living in a FREE society means giving everyone the same rights and privileges you enjoy.

  93. 104

    Don Joe spews:

    RD @ 100

    Would you ban consenting adults such as brother-sister, Mother-son, Father-daughter from marrying as well?

    Yes.

    If not, you’re argument is entirely inconsistent.

    I think that statement reverses the logic of what you intended to say.

    And, no, the argument isn’t inconsistent at all. In all of those cases, the state has a compelling interest in banning those marriages. While, theoretically, one could say that there is no compelling interest in cases involving incestuous couples incapable of reproducing, the problem then becomes the burden on the state to ensure that the compelling interest is upheld.

    Please, do read up on what the law has to say about the equal protection clause and compelling state interests. There is, actually, a three-pronged test that the courts will apply under the doctrine of “strict scrutiny.” One of the factors that figures into this three-pronged test is the relative costs to the state of protecting that compelling state interest vis-a-vis the discriminatory law. That issue arises for both incestuous marriages and for polygamous marriages.

  94. 105

    GBS spews:

    Don Joe,
    I have an off topic and somewhat personal question to ask you. If you opt not to answer I fully understand.

    Are you an attorney?

  95. 106

    Don Joe spews:

    GBS

    Are you an attorney?

    Nope. I’m a software developer.

    My BA is in Economics, and I had entered that degree program fully intending on going to law school. In fact, I took several undergraduate law courses offered by the poli-sci department with that in mind (including two courses on Constitutional Law).

    The summer following my junior year in college, I was accepted to an internship in the Corporation Council’s Office for Washington, DC, and decided thereafter that, while I’d very much enjoy the study of the law, I wouldn’t enjoy the practice of it all that much.

    So, there I was, two semesters away from a degree in Economics and completely bereft of any direction. I graduated, knocked around through a few jobs, discovered that I really liked playing with computers (just as the personal computer revolution was getting started), went back to college to study computer science, and here I am.

    It was a circuitous route, but I can’t complain about the destination so far.

  96. 107

    GBS spews:

    Thanks, Don Joe. That explains a lot.

    Obviously, academia has polluted your mind. At least, that’s what the Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck crowd would have us believe.

  97. 108

    Don Joe spews:

    GBS

    Obviously, academia has polluted your mind.

    Well, sort of. In some ways, my knowledge of the law parallels the extent to which most libertarians understand Economics. I know just enough to get us all in trouble, but there are significant gaps in my knowledge.

    For example (and I’m surprised that Rick hasn’t picked up on this), you and I have been arguing that a strict scrutiny standard ought to be applied with respect to same-sex marriage, but, until now, the Supreme Court has generally reserved strict scrutiny for cases involving fundamental rights or cases involving race, ethnic origin or religion as a “suspect classification” (google the term for details).

    The point I’ve raised about certain churches being willing to administer rites of marriage might well raise this to a level that warrants strict scrutiny, but that is a bit of a stretch.

    I think, ultimately, same-sex marriage laws won’t be subject to strict scrutiny until such time as courts accept the current scientific consensus that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice any more than race or ethnic origin is a matter of choice (c.f. here).

    Nevertheless, while I am of the opinion that strict scrutiny ought to apply, that is not, by any means, a given, and it is the one area, at least in terms of the legal issues involved, where reasonable people can disagree.

  98. 109

    proud leftist spews:

    Hey, HAers, here we are again. We had to take a week’s hiatus due to real-life responsibilities (I hate having to deal with responsibilities), but now we’re back and it’s time to spread around some love and good cheer, and to build up some wingnut self-esteem, by giving out this week’s HA Troll of the Week Award (aka The Golden Goat). We had yet another frenzied week of competition. Indeed, it was exhausting just to observe the frenzy. Posts about taxes, and we had many this week, always get our trolls all lathered up (sorry if that expression produces some nasty mental images).

    We’ve seen some new trolls appear recently–RennDawg, Freddy Mercury, Crusader come to mind. They show some real potential; they could become real competitors. Some advice for you boys–hone your skills in Double-A ball, be patient, and you just might get a late season call-up. I’ve got to warn you, though, that you’re up against some seasoned professionals in this troll league, and you can’t expect to play at their level without more experience. And, of course, some of our old regulars vomited up their usual toxic blend of venom and vacuity this week—Troll, Mark1, and Little Ricky D, among others. They remind us how life in a rightwing country would truly be nasty, brutish, and short. And, paranoid—did I mention paranoid? Fortunately, the prospect of a rightwing country developing is becoming less and less likely as lunacy consumes what is left of the rightwing—can anyone say, “Michelle Bachmann”?

    Tallying the count his week was painfully laborious given the number of competitors and the volume of their entries. When done, I came to a surprising result. I recounted the confused and confusing entries several times, almost giving up on obtaining an acceptable resolution. I thought about calling a new election or tossing a coin, but feared litigation. The profound sense of fairness our trolls bring to every discussion led me to simply decide to go with what it is—an unprecedented tie.

    Yes, a tie. But, you know, the more I thought about it, the more I thought justice had probably been done. A tie honors the sick symbiosis that has developed between these two fellows, a finish-each-others’-sentences type of symbiosis, the full nature of which I’d rather not know. They cover each others’ backs—one even defended the other this week when the other tried to make a partisan issue of the tragic death of a young ballplayer. Moreover, these boys share many juvenile traits—they like words in all caps, strange spellings of common words, and giving humorless nicknames to those of us on the adult side of the political fence. They have a common belief that polls are more reliable than elections in gauging the pulse of the American people. These gents also share a smug self-righteousness manifested in repeated claims of their holier-than-thouness. Perhaps they consider their proclamations of piety as evangelical outreach, but such proclamations would seem much more likely to turn others off to the faith they espouse, rather than to draw others in. These guys’ most laudable common trait, though, is their utter dedication to spewing everyday, all day; sacrificing their lives, and all other interests, to the cause of pushing their comedic agenda, thereby providing all of us with endless mirth.

    And the Goat goes to—

    Puddy and Cynical. Wow, fellows, repeat winners—another first in the Goat’s long and storied history. High-five each other, toast yourselves, give each other a big ol’ man hug. By the way, while we’re on the topic of Puddy and Cynny, I’d like to thank regular poster Steve for providing the Mayo Clinic’s diagnostic profile of “narcissistic personality disorder.” Steve diagnosed Cynny with the disorder, but plainly Puddy has a like diagnosis:

    Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. They believe that they’re superior to others and have little regard for other people’s feelings. Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:

    * Believing that you’re better than others
    * Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
    * Exaggerating your achievements or talents
    * Expecting constant praise and admiration
    * Believing that you’re special

    Damn, does that diagnosis fit, or what? Well, gentlemen, today you get some well-deserved praise and admiration, and let me confirm that you are indeed special—you are, in fact, two-time Goat winners. Congrats. Bask in it.

  99. 110

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    GBS, the argument you put forth asking for a “compelling legal argument” against gay marriage to Puddy is wrong. Puddy has no problems with civil unions, what your friends do behind closed doors is fine with me.

    The left side argument is primarily around giving social and public recognition to an intimate relationship between two same-sex people, force people into calling it marriage, as anything less is discrimination.

    The right argument is revolves around protecting the God-given and God-blessed relationship of opposite-sex people and to protect this intimate time-honored God-blessed multi-century marriage relationship for the purposes of its procreative potential, something same-sex people cannot perform.

    GBS, it has nothing to do with 90 year old men and women getting married in their old age, although GBS you know Abraham and Sarah had Issac at a very ripe old age!

    Is Puddy correct?

    Yes []
    No []

    Puddy will continue based on accepting this new premise…

  100. 111

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    proud loony,

    Puddy is special. If you are not special to someone why do you continue to breathe or exist? So with the honor bestowed with the Golden Goat Puddy accepts.

    But Puddy was curious as Puddy accepted his Golden Goat from proud loony, why is my Golden Goat drained empty with a pair of lip prints on it’s wang? We thought our Golden Goats came loaded?

    Tsk tsk tsk!

  101. 112

    Don Joe spews:

    Puddy @ 110

    The right argument is revolves around protecting the God-given and God-blessed relationship…

    And Unitarian Universalists need not apply.

    @ 111

    why is my Golden Goat drained empty with a pair of lip prints on it’s wang

    Oh, oh. Looks like Cynical got there first.

  102. 113

    proud leftist spews:

    Puddy @ 111
    Hey, maybe Cynny got the Goat before FedEx got it to you. Your gracious acceptance accepted.

    Puddy, with regard to your post @ 110: tell me, why did God create gay people? Is it because He wants to see vilification, hatred, and nonsense directed to those He loves? That would likely be God’s purpose, correct?

  103. 114

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Don Joe, I accepted my Golden Goat directly from proud loony. Anything else is pure conjecture from you and lies from proud loony. From his hands to mine. Cynical was no where to be found when I stepped up to accept it.

  104. 115

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Don Joe,

    And Unitarian Universalists need not apply.

    Where did marriage come from?

    Evolution?

  105. 116

    Don Joe spews:

    Hm…

    PL @ 113 spews:

    Hey, maybe Cynny got the Goat before FedEx got it to you.

    Puddy @ 114 spews:

    Don Joe, I accepted my Golden Goat directly from proud loony.

    So, Puddy, whatever led you to believe that the person on your front porch wearing that FedEx uniform was, in fact, PL?

  106. 117

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    proud loony asked

    why did God create gay people? Is it because He wants to see vilification, hatred, and nonsense directed to those He loves?

    How do you know God created gay people? Why weren’t Adam and Eve created gay? Are you discounting Sin entering into the world? Are we created in God’s image or is only Adam and Eve? When Cain, Abel and Seth arrived after sin, were they created in God’s image or Adam’s fallen image?

    Regarding the rest of your commentary God loves all His people in Creation, but dislikes the sin. I’m sure Daddy sat you on his knee when you were a wee one and discussed this with you…

  107. 118

    Rick D. spews:

    102. GBS spews:
    Rick D. @ 100,I asked you this earlier and you ignored it. Of all the comparions made so far this one is the closest to the debate we’re having.

    Is the ban on interracial marriages correct or not?

    To answer your question, there is no ban on interracial marriages, unless of course, the two happen to be of the same sex. So the point is moot.
    You’re talking apples and oranges, GBS. Assuming the interracial marriage (of which I happen to belong to this group) is between one man/one woman, heterosexual, consenting adults, there is no ban on this relationship being recognized “by the state” as having a legal and lawful marriage (with exceptions as outlined by the state- in WA it’s the RCW @ 58).
    You need to look a little deeper for an analogous comparison to the same-sex marriage issue.

    104. Don Joe spews:

    Yes.[I would ban incestuous relationships]

    …And, no, the argument isn’t inconsistent at all. In all of those cases, the state has a compelling interest in banning those marriages.

    ..and what would that be? It’s a completely identical issue that has every merit you’re trying to make with the same-sex marriages, which is why I use it to show that we all have at some level, built in biases. Completely parralel argument could be made for both of age polygamists and incestuous couples.

    While, theoretically, one could say that there is no compelling interest in cases involving incestuous couples incapable of reproducing, the problem then becomes the burden on the state to ensure that the compelling interest is upheld.

    What compelling legal interest is it for the state to deny a polygamist relationship, that doesn’t also exist for a same-sex relationship? There is none.

    There is, actually, a three-pronged test that the courts will apply under the doctrine of “strict scrutiny.” One of the factors that figures into this three-pronged test is the relative costs to the state of protecting that compelling state interest vis-a-vis the discriminatory law. That issue arises for both incestuous marriages and for polygamous marriages.

    Actually it doesn’t arise for either, and since even the courts have never even clearly defined what the term “compelling governmental interest” is for themselves, this can hardly be used to then discriminate against incest or polygamy, but not same-sex relationships.

    One can argue that because same-sex couples in this state have been afforded every right that married heterosexual couples do, that this is not even an issue about equal protection, but about semantics. If a parralel institution of “union”, which by most sane persons definition is synonomous with “marriage”, then the point is moot.

    For the same-sex advocates, it’s time to stop charging at windmills on some quixotic quest to win a battle after you’ve already won the war.

  108. 119

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    No Don Joe. It wasn’t delivered. In fact only the US mail came into Puddy’s neighborhood today. And the mailman only delivered mail.

    Puddy wasn’t on DL most of the day. He was traveling over to receive it in person. I received a coded message to travel west and receive a special prize. It has strange fingerprints all over it’s private parts with the lips.

  109. 120

    Rick D. spews:

    110. Puddybud, Hey it’s the new year… spews:

    Is Puddy correct?

    Yes []
    No []

    Yes [x]

    No [ ]

  110. 121

    Puddy is a Shithead spews:

    Heterosexuals have screwed up this world enough. And they will continue to screw it up. What differences does two gays being married or unmarried make, when it comes to procreation. To Procreate you don’t have to be married – and as most niggers do, they have children without being married, then they want the government to take care of them. So, what does gay marriage have to do with procreation and extending the white race beyond the increase in a bunch of spics and niggers?

  111. 122

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Wow @121.

    Procreate you don’t have to be married – and as most niggers do, they have children without being married, then they want the government to take care of them.

    Way to go. You make Steve really proud. What would Steve say now?

    So, what does gay marriage have to do with procreation and extending the white race beyond the increase in a bunch of spics and niggers?

    Such progressive thought. You make clueless wonder proud.

  112. 123

    Don Joe spews:

    RD @ 118

    Let’s take a step back, because the legal issues get rather complex. You are arguing, and correct me if I’m wrong in restating your argument, that applying a strict scrutiny standard to same-sex marriage opens the door to both incestuous marriage and to polygamous marriage. I disagree, and there are two parts to my disagreement.

    The first is whether or not the same strict scrutiny standard, if applied to same-sex marriage, would also apply to incestuous and polygamous marriage. I would argue that it does not. The primary argument for applying the strict scrutiny standard to same-sex marriage rests on the fact that the discrimination in a ban on same-sex marriage involves a “suspect class.” Neither incestuous marriage nor polygamous marriage involves discrimination against a suspect class of persons. Indeed, lacking involvement of discrimination against a “suspect class,” the equal protection clause doesn’t even come into play (we’ve already agreed that this does not involve a fundamental right).

    In further support of this view, I would point out that there is existing case law that applies the “rational scrutiny” (and least rigorous) standard in religious freedom cases involving state interests, which rather strongly implies that the “rational scrutiny” standard would also apply to polygamous marriages. Polygamy involves religious freedom issues (and not just from Mormons), and, if that isn’t sufficient to warrant a strict scrutiny standard, then it’s difficult to argue that polygamy would warrant strict scrutiny on equal protection grounds.

    Lastly, if religious freedom isn’t sufficient to warrant strict scrutiny of polygamous marriages, then there is no legal basis for wanting to apply strict scrutiny to incestuous marriages.

    So, in conclusion of point one, both incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage would involve the less rigorous standard of “rational scrutiny,” which brings me to point two. Would a ban on either form of marriage withstand a rational scrutiny, and I would argue that bans on both withstand a rational scrutiny.

    For incestuous marriage, there is a higher incidence of congenital defects among the offspring of closely-related couples. That, and the attendant costs to society, provides for upholding the law under rational scrutiny.

    For polygamous marriage, there is a long list of social costs where nearly every one of which would be sufficient to withstand a challenge under rational scrutiny. One of the best recitals of these costs is this article by Richard Posner.

    Both of these questions, that of the applicable standard for each of these bans and whether or not the respective bans would withstand scrutiny under the applicable standard, are covered extensively in the book I mentioned above, Same-sex Marriage and the Constitution, by Evan Gerstmann.

    Lastly:

    One can argue that because same-sex couples in this state have been afforded every right that married heterosexual couples do

    Well, one could try to make that argument, but the premise that “same-sex couples in this state have been afforded every right” has yet to be shown to be true. Indeed, I’ve already pointed out one right that can’t be afforded unless the state recognizes same-sex marriage.

    Please. Trying to base an argument on a contested fact without any reference whatsoever to the controversy is simply a disingenuous form of debate and discussion. You have been doing well, here. Don’t stoop to such cheap rhetorical tactics.

  113. 124

    Don Joe spews:

    By the way, I have a hard time getting through all of this without that scene from The Princess Bride asserting itself in my head:

    Mawwiage. Mawwiage is what bwings us togethew today. Mawwiage, that bwessed awwangement, that dweam within a dweam. And wove, twue wove, wiww fowwow you fowevah and evah… So tweasuwe youw wove…

    I don’t know why.

  114. 125

    proud leftist spews:

    Puddy @ 119:”Puddy wasn’t on DL most of the day. He was traveling over to receive it in person. I received a coded message to travel west and receive a special prize. It has strange fingerprints all over it’s private parts with the lips.”

    Damn, do I actually detect a sense of humor there? Kudos, my amigo, for being a good sport. Cynny, on the other hand, nowhere to be found.

  115. 126

    proud leftist spews:

    121
    Whoever you are, you are not welcome here. We might bash each other here, but you have crossed the line.

  116. 127

    Domestic Parter with Child spews:

    The right argument is revolves around protecting the God-given and God-blessed relationship of opposite-sex people and to protect this intimate time-honored God-blessed multi-century marriage relationship for the purposes of its procreative potential, something same-sex people cannot perform.

    So basically, when confronted with logic, conservatives resort to saying their religion allows them to be bigots.

    As I already said, gay people can have kids, they can adopt like straight people do, or can procreate in complicated ways, like straight people do. So should you grant marriage only to gay couples with kids, or should you cancel all straight marriages that do not have kids?

    To answer your question, there is no ban on interracial marriages, unless of course, the two happen to be of the same sex. So the point is moot.
    There used to be, or don’t that matter?

    Would you ban consenting adults such as brother-sister, Mother-son, Father-daughter from marrying as well?
    Yes. As. I. Already. Said. Those rules were there to avoid inbreeding. Gays don’t inbreed so that prohibition should not apply.

  117. 128

    proud leftist spews:

    127
    You can’t argue with him, though I admire your tenacity in trying. A reasoned debate requires two people engaging in, uh, reason. You won’t get that with Puddy. I suspect he’s not a bad guy, but he has some delusional features that are best left untouched.

  118. 129

    Steve spews:

    @109 Thanks for the shout out. Much appreciated. I suspect that Puddy and Mr. Klynical already have some experience in sharing goats, so this should work out just fine for them.

    @121 Take that racist shit to Stormfront.

    @122 What would Steve say? Refer to my previous remark. Steve also says that Puddy nor any other right-wing poster here had the balls to call out the right-wing Troll for making the same type of racist comment so Puddy and his fellow travelers can just shut their flapping traps.

  119. 130

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Domestic said:

    So basically, when confronted with logic, conservatives resort to saying their religion allows them to be bigots.

    So the institution of marriage came from Evolution? Well that’s the position most HA leftists take agains intelligent design. What is your definition of a bigot?

    As I already said, gay people can have kids, they can adopt like straight people do, or can procreate in complicated ways, like straight people do. So should you grant marriage only to gay couples with kids, or should you cancel all straight marriages that do not have kids?

    Oh really?
    Adoption fo sho.
    Procreate in complicated ways, like straight people do? Hmmm… Not really. A man and a woman in marriage have all the necessary equipment to procreate. You are adding additional values to the equation you put forth above. Non-sequitur.

  120. 131

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    proud loony:

    Puddy always has a sense of humor. It had to be your lips on the Golden Goat since you gave it directly to Puddy. We met on the courthouse steps. You apologized for the lack of press coverage and your cameraphone was out of memeory. What were you taking pictures of? “Evidence”? Puddy wondered why this one weighed less. So when Puddy got into the PuddyMobile Puddy shook it in the box and it didn’t have the standard sloshing sound.

    Regarding #127, Domestic only copied part of my comment. The rest was Rick D. Also since you chose not to engage in answering #110, why the attack now? Cuz you just have to get in a dig against my Golden Goat joke? So which is it proud loony?

    EPIC FAIL!

  121. 132

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Domestic – What is the primary role of marriage? Why did you skip over my left side argument?

    “The left side argument is primarily around giving social and public recognition to an intimate relationship between two same-sex people, force people into calling it marriage, as anything less is discrimination.”

    Didn’t like the truth stated in my argument – “force people into calling it marriage”

  122. 133

    Steve spews:

    In vitro, Puddy. You know, one of the “complicated ways” so many straight Republican Christians use that leaves all those little unwanted blastocyst Americans languishing in freezers? You remember them, don’t you, Puddy? Those blastocyst Americans that Nancy Reagan wants to use to find cures for diseases?

  123. 135

    YLB spews:

    122 – The racists are on your side fool. You ought to know – you call out to them all the time.

    They’re your friends.

  124. 136

    Rick D. spews:

    Don Joe @ 123:
    The first is whether or not the same strict scrutiny standard, if applied to same-sex marriage, would also apply to incestuous and polygamous marriage. I would argue that it does not. The primary argument for applying the strict scrutiny standard to same-sex marriage rests on the fact that the discrimination in a ban on same-sex marriage involves a “suspect class.”

    The key words here are “if applied”, and since strict scrutiny does not list sexual orientation under a “suspect class”, nor polygamy or incestuous relationships for that mattter, it cannot be used under the equal protection clause.

    Neither incestuous marriage nor polygamous marriage involves discrimination against a suspect class of persons.

    Correct, but you also left out sexual orientation, which is also not a category within the “suspect class”.

    Polygamy involves religious freedom issues (and not just from Mormons), and, if that isn’t sufficient to warrant a strict scrutiny standard, then it’s difficult to argue that polygamy would warrant strict scrutiny on equal protection grounds.

    Given that even religious freedoms are not protected under the ‘strict scrutiny’ standard, it’s also difficult to argue that same-sex marriage would also warrant strict scrutiny on equal protection grounds.

    Would a ban on either form of [an incestuous or polygamist] marriage withstand a rational scrutiny, and I would argue that bans on both withstand a rational scrutiny.

    As would a same-sex marriage as it is not covered under the “suspect class” clause under the strict scrutiny prong.

    For incestuous marriage, there is a higher incidence of congenital defects among the offspring of closely-related couples. That, and the attendant costs to society, provides for upholding the law under rational scrutiny.

    This is where the same-sex marriage falls apart under the “compelling interest of the state” area. While incestuous marriages would produce physical congenital defects detrimental to the ‘state interest’, so too would same-sex unions raise questions of the psychological well-being of an opposite sex child raised by same-sex parents.

    I believe we’d all agree the optimal environment for stable child rearing would be a man and a woman relationship in order for the child to relate with both parents of opposite sex. Imagine a female child being reared by two male adults…now imagine puberty and all of the hormonal imbalances taking place within that child. Not a good thought is it?

    This scenario is, as i’ve been asked to provide, a “compelling state interest” in why same-sex marriages should continue to be legally banned under state law.

    Lastly:
    One can argue that because same-sex couples in this state have been afforded every right that married heterosexual couples do

    Only because they have…

    Indeed, I’ve already pointed out one right that can’t be afforded unless the state recognizes same-sex marriage.

    …and again, we are talking about semantics here. Legally, the washington state RCW prohibits same-sex marriages, while saying nothing about civil unions. Again, why fight a battle after you’ve won the war? There is no winner in trying to usurp the term “marriage”, you’re only going to harden ardent forces against it.

    Trying to base an argument on a contested fact without any reference whatsoever to the controversy is simply a disingenuous form of debate and discussion. You have been doing well, here. Don’t stoop to such cheap rhetorical tactics.

    I’m simply applying the laws that exist within this debate. As we speak, same-sex marriages are banned in this state and largely in the U.S. due to adjudicated statutes. The burden is upon the advocates of this banned practice to change those laws through the afforded legal avenues at their disposal. Unlike the human rights travesty of our time (abortion), the issue of same-sex marriage still carries some legal grounds for redress.
    I suggest you take it.

  125. 138

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Steve, there are more than 62 leftist weasels on HA. Only you and proud loony called @120 out. clueless wonder skipped right over it. Puddy knows why. He’s clueless.

    Hmmm… doesn’t seem to be quorum.

  126. 140

    Rick D. spews:

    109. proud leftist spews:
    And, of course, some of our old regulars vomited up their usual toxic blend of venom and vacuity this week—Troll, Mark1, and Little Ricky D, among others. They remind us how life in a rightwing country would truly be nasty, brutish, and short. And, paranoid—did I mention paranoid?

    For a coward unwilling to engage in substantive debate, you certainly have your opinions.

    Too bad you can’t express them intelligently.

  127. 141

    Don Joe spews:

    RD @ 136

    Correct, but you also left out sexual orientation, which is also not a category within the “suspect class”.

    Yes, I did. My argument is that sexual orientation ought to be a suspect class if we apply the general set of criteria for defining a suspect class, most of which have been articulated in US v Carolene Products. The four criteria involve a discrete minority who possess an immutable trait, have been subject to discrimination in the past, and are generally powerless to protect themselves via the political process.

    Current case law is headed in that direction. Lawrence v Texas does appear to apply something slightly higher than a simple rational standard would suggest (though, I should point out, the case was decided on due process ground, not equal protection grounds). While not explicitly saying so, it comes very close to raising sexual orientation to at least quasi-suspect status.

    As I’ve said before, this is an area where reasonable people can disagree, but, regardless of the precise legal status of sexual orientation vis-a-vis the equal protection clause, one cannot reasonably deny that, whatever the status for sexual orientation, it cannot be considered identical to that involving polygamy or incest.

    I believe we’d all agree the optimal environment for stable child rearing would be a man and a woman relationship in order for the child to relate with both parents of opposite sex.

    That’s not a given. As far as the social and psychological fields are concerned, I believe the jury’s still out. Without a sound scientific basis for that conclusion, it’s difficult to get this to pass even the rational test.

    This scenario is, as i’ve been asked to provide, a “compelling state interest” in why same-sex marriages should continue to be legally banned under state law.

    Actually, that’s not a compelling state interest. The notion of a compelling state interest only applies within the purview of strict scrutiny. Rational scrutiny involves a lower standard, as does intermediate scrutiny.

    The point regarding compelling state interest serves to focus the debate on the question of the legal status of homosexuality, where it belongs, rather than on largely religion-based notions of morality.

    Lastly, regarding rights under existing laws, I have, three times now, challenged your claim. I have provided links regarding existing law, have provided examples not covered by proposed legislation, and have pointed to centuries’ worth distinct rights and privileges derived through common law that cannot possibly be covered by existing law without massive legislation.

    If you want to claim that this is all just a matter of semantics, then you really do have the onus to prove it to be true. Continuing to assert this without offering any evidence is debating in bad faith.

  128. 142

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Steve, Puddy understands in-vitro. You missed the inference. With same sex partnerships you need a donor of the off sex. Male-Male needs female and Female-Female needs a male. And don’t even try the hetero marriage one sterile argument. Puddy argued above “the purposes of its procreative potential,”.

    See ya.

  129. 143

    Rick D. spews:

    141. Don Joe spews:
    My argument is that sexual orientation ought to be a suspect class if we apply the general set of criteria for defining a suspect class, most of which have been articulated in US v Carolene Products. The four criteria involve a discrete minority who possess an immutable trait, have been subject to discrimination in the past, and are generally powerless to protect themselves via the political process.

    Ought to be? I wish I could live in the world of “ought to be”, unfortunately, we live in a world of what is. As for the immutable trait of homosexuality, that is not a scientific fact, only theory. If we are to use the formula given for strict scrutiny, sexual orientation does not fit within the purview of an “equal protection” argument.

    Current case law is headed in that direction. Lawrence v Texas does appear to apply something slightly higher than a simple rational standard would suggest (though, I should point out, the case was decided on due process ground, not equal protection grounds). While not explicitly saying so, it comes very close to raising sexual orientation to at least quasi-suspect status.

    Apples and oranges argument. Lawrence v. Texas was about sodomy laws, not gay marriage. Because gays have already been afforded every right of heterosexual marriages, they’re now only attempting to infringe on the terminology used throughout time by heterosexuals. This is more about a petty ‘want’ than an actual ‘need’, which is why the backlash will only increase if they continue down this ridiculous path.

    …one cannot reasonably deny that, whatever the status for sexual orientation, it cannot be considered identical to that involving polygamy or incest.

    Actually it certainly can, [by Washington state statute regarding “prohibited marriages”]and you’ve given little evidence to back up this assertion that hasn’t been refuted by me with examples.

    That [the optimal atmosphere for child rearing is a man and woman] is not a given. As far as the social and psychological fields are concerned, I believe the jury’s still out.Without a sound scientific basis for that conclusion, it’s difficult to get this to pass even the rational test.

    You’re joking, right? If you can detail one reknowned psychologist that would back your assertion that a man/woman relationship is not the optimal child rearing environment, I’d be interested to read about it. Not some loony leftist as I’m sure you could find any number of them on the net, but an actual world reknowned professional. Bet you can’t.

    Actually, that’s not a compelling state interest. The notion of a compelling state interest only applies within the purview of strict scrutiny. Rational scrutiny involves a lower standard, as does intermediate scrutiny.

    By that standard, neither would polygamy or of age incest as it involves only consenting adults. The psychological well being of a child is certainly a compelling interest of the state as case law has proven time and again with respect to which parent is given guardianship in divorce proceedings. To ban consenting adults on the grounds of “compelling state interest” , while ignoring a childs need for a stable, psychological environment to be raised in, is asinine on its face.

    The point regarding compelling state interest serves to focus the debate on the question of the legal status of homosexuality, where it belongs, rather than on largely religion-based notions of morality.

    We’ve already determined the legal status currently. Same-sex marriages are banned under state law in washington. Nothing religous-based about it, just the accepted norms of a normal society. The people have decided that these practices are banned for a reason. It is up to the advocates of gay marriage to either accept this, or argue their case one of two ways. Through the legislative process or by public referendum. You have options, so use them.

    Lastly, regarding rights under existing laws, I have, three times now, challenged your claim.

    Challenge all you like, the facts are on my side as I’ve shown the RCW that outlines which marriages are “prohibited” in this state. Emotional arguments fail on merit.

    I have provided links regarding existing law, have provided examples not covered by proposed legislation, and have pointed to centuries’ worth distinct rights and privileges derived through common law that cannot possibly be covered by existing law without massive legislation.

    You’ve pointed to states other than Washington state, which is where we live. The current legal status in this state is clear.

    If you want to claim that this is all just a matter of semantics, then you really do have the onus to prove it to be true. Continuing to assert this without offering any evidence is debating in bad faith.

    Facts are inconvenient things, my friend. Reality dictates that same-sex couples in this state are afforded every right that is extended to heterosexual couples. You can call that debating in “bad faith” if you’d like, but don’t insult my intelligence to say otherwise.

    The onus is on you to provide a compelling case for why the laws should be changed, not the other way around.

  130. 144

    Rick D. spews:

    …one last thing, Don Joe.

    When the debate is reduced to arguing about the non-existent ‘right’ to call it “marriage” versus a “civil union”, we are, in fact, talking about an argument of semantics.

  131. 146

    Steve spews:

    Ever the fool, Puddy @138 wants to talk about how many leftists haven’t smacked down the racist @121 yet, even though on this tired, old thread, several from the left have already done so. They are the only ones to do so. To borrow from Puddy’s fellow traveler, the racist, wing-nut Troll, what is it that Puddy is not saying? What Puddy is not saying is that not a single person on the right, including himself, especially himself, has delivered a smackdown to Troll for spewing the “N” word on this blog. Not one. None. Nada. Zip. Zero.

  132. 147

    Puddy is a Shithead spews:

    What? It’s ok to be prejudice towards gays, but then we all have to take out the bible when it comes to niggers and spics. Give me a break.

  133. 149

    Don Joe spews:

    RD @ 143

    I wish I could live in the world of “ought to be”

    Isn’t this entire debate a question about what “ought to be”? Indeed, what’s a policy debate if we aren’t talking about what “ought to be”?

    As for the immutable trait of homosexuality, that is not a scientific fact, only theory.

    You mean “theory” in the sense that evolution is a “theory”? People have tried to “cure” homosexuality. What’s been the success rate?

    Find any peer-reviewed scientific research that even remotely shows that homosexuality is mutable. There isn’t any. There is some controversy over the fundamental cause, in particular whether the causes are strictly genetic or environmental, but even the research into potential environmental causes focus on prenatal and early childhood development.

    Also, I think you’re completely missing the point about the legal status of homosexuality. Laws outlawing polygamy and incestuous marriage do not affect specific minority groups in the same way that a law outlawing same-sex marriage. If homosexuality warrants suspect class status (or even, potentially, quasi-suspect class status), then any law that adversely affects homosexuals and only homosexuals must withstand a higher standard of scrutiny than laws that affect people who want to marry members of their family or have multiple marriage partners.

    Apples and oranges argument. Lawrence v. Texas was about sodomy laws, not gay marriage.

    All of jurisprudence involves, at some level, an apples to oranges comparison on pure factual grounds. Indeed, the entire point of jurisprudence is to take one set of facts, and distill a set of legal principles from those facts that are then applicable to a variety of other factual situations that have at least some similarities. You’ve just negated the core principle behind the idea of stare decisis.

    Regarding same-sex parenting:

    If you can detail one reknowned psychologist that would back your assertion that a man/woman relationship is not the optimal child rearing environment, I’d be interested to read about it.

    First of all, that’s not what I said. I said that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that a man/woman relationship is an optimal child-rearing relationship, and I can point to several studies that show this to be the case. Most of the research that has reached any conclusion on either side of the issue has been flawed due to sampling problems. You can find a good run-down of this issue here.

    Secondly, you’ve turned the presumption on its head. If we are to apply a standard of scrutiny above that of the simple rational test, then we need something more than inconclusive results on this question. In the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, the only basis we have is social mores, and that’s not good enough.

    To illustrate this point, social mores were, until Brown v Board of Education, sufficient to allow for “separate but equal” facilities for a variety of state services. After Brown v Board of Education, social mores were insufficient grounds for determining a compelling state interest that would justify separate facilities for state services.

    Lastly, regarding your claim that this is really all a matter of semantics:

    Challenge all you like, the facts are on my side as I’ve shown the RCW that outlines which marriages are “prohibited” in this state. Emotional arguments fail on merit.

    What, on earth, are you talking about? You’re back to arguing that the sky is blue. At times, I wonder if you actually read what others have written. You’ve claimed:

    Reality dictates that same-sex couples in this state are afforded every right that is extended to heterosexual couples.

    What “reality” are you talking about? Whatever reality that is, it’s not the reality in this state. I’ve proved this to be true, with the following evidence that you can find in several of my comments above:

    1) We have pending legislation that would add some 300 additional rights for people in domestic partnerships that they currently do not have yet do accrue to people who are legally married;

    2) Even the proposed legislation does not accord a same-sex couple the right to have their religious marriage recognized as valid in cases where their religion allows them to receive marriage rites; and

    3) We have centuries’ worth of accumulated common law rights and privileges under the broad category of “family law” that your claim has not accounted for.

    Yes. Facts are, indeed, inconvenient things, which leads me to ask, why do you insist on ignoring the above facts when you claim that “same-sex couples in this state are afforded every right that is extended to heterosexual couples”?

  134. 150

    Puddy is a Shithead spews:

    Quick git yer gunnns so we can keep them niggers and spics away from the food an water.