Redstate

Once the homosexuals get the 5-4 decision, they will probably continue to position themselves as being just normal folks, just like anyone else, just like they are portrayed on stage and screen! They may feign disgust with polygamist and man/dog relationship as being less than us normal heterosexual and homosexual marriages.

If he ain't good enough for family . . . .

Majority rule with no minority rights? Just because there are MORE of one group of people doesn't mean the minority doesn't have an equal claim under the law, does it?

Wait... every reputable study puts the gay population at about 2% here in the States... hmmm...

--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com

that the laws of the state aren't going to be changed every time a fringe group pops up with a complaint. They certainly have rights, including the right to argue their case in front of a judge or panel of judges. But the legislature and state supreme court aren't likely to allocate any time to fixing what virtually nobody perceives as an injustice.

Your 2% figure would mean 6 million gay Americans, and I don't know what reputable studies you're referring to, but that # seems extremely low. Even at 6 million, though, this issue can't be defined as fringe.

And if you think YOU feel uncomfortable after reading, think about how I felt typing it. In fact, I thought it was a cute idea for a post, and I had several more items to go through on the list above, but the ick factor got too high.

I think that makes me a bigot, too.

John Cotton's rolling over in his grave.

soli Deo gloria

*"No man shall marry his... wife’s mother, wife’s grandmother, wife’s daughter, wife’s granddaughter..."*

Wouldn't this be bigamy, anyway?

Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.

IANAL, but it seems to me that every argument that was/can be brought to bear to declare that it is unconstitutional to restrict marriage to a man/woman combination is equally valid in an attack on the constitutionality of a ban on a brother-brother union, or of an incestuous one between adults.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the sophists in the court system would find a way to disagree with me, but in plain English and logic, it can't be done.

Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.

I'm by no means a legal scholar, but I want to give this a shot.

I'm not sure how to generalize this, but I can think of a specific example in terms of legal benefits. In terms of death, if a gay couple is not legally married, a probate judge can step in and invalidate one partner's bequest to another. In terms of familial bequests, I am not sure that can be legally halted. That's a pretty clear distinction to me, assuming that is the case. If anyone with some legal experience can weigh in here, I'd appreciate it.

But I do see your point, as I am having trouble articulating the line between legalizing incest and same-sex marriage, other than I think it's a ridiculous slippery slope argument. And while I somehow doubt that calling it a ridiculous slippery-slope argument is a valid defense, I am not aware of any significant movements to legalize incest in countries where same sex marriage has been legalized.

Don't get sidetracked by details, when what I wrote about was a concept. I was neither arguing for "incest" nor claiming a slippery-slope argument.

I was simply making the assertion that the rationalizing arguments/reasoning are the same. If you (as a judge) find for the unconstitutionality of restrictions against the one kind of "marriage" based on equal protection clauses in the Cal Constitution, you must also find against restrictions on other kinds as well. This is presuming that there isn't some other constitutional clause that would invalidate my reasoning.

Furthermore, it makes absolute rational sense that there will be thousands of cases where a sibling will want to "marry" another sibling for the legal or health benefits rather than the carnal ones. Since there is no requirement that there be any reason given for a marriage, and given the recent Cal SC ruling, there can be nothing to stop any two men from "marrying" in California, whatever their reasons may be. They may be simply good friends, as in Oscar and Felix or the Sunshine Boys (only more so). But the same arguments that were persuasive to the Cal SC about gay men logically apply to dedicated friends just as well.

Once that's settled for men and women separately, it will follow for opposite-sex siblings and other unconventional pairings. It's just logic.

As for legal benefits, with a valid will you may leave your estate to whomever you choose, subject only to possible legal restrictions in some states that require the spouse to receive some part of the marital property. But that wouldn't have any applicability to the example you stated.

To be honest, for all I know this could all be accomplished right now by use of, what is it called?, civil union laws.

The argument right now is actually all about the word "marriage," not about the substance.

Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.

A judge can't set aside a bequest just because it goes to a gay lover instead of a child. Probate law is a state by state deal, but the states don't vary too much because we're all the progeny of hundreds of years of English common law.

The advantage of gays marrying each other, probate wise, is when no will is left at all.

Hopefully, the people screening adoptive parents would catch their perversion.

The homosexual = pedophile argument doesn't fly. Try something else.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Re: "The homosexual = pedophile argument doesn't fly."

Where'd you see that? Get a grip!

Re: "Hopefully, the people screening adoptive parents would catch their perversion."

How? By inserting government agents "into their bedroom"?

Don't do that again, please. Full stop.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

And it's not like she's an anti-American idiot or anything, right? :-)

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I'm kidding. In truth I agree with Moe completely. Nobody should take my comment as undermining his moderation here.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Funny. I didn't see it at all.

Pedophiles are neither homosexual or heterosexual, they're essentially child predators. They also associate with one another. They are overwhelmingly male.

Same-sex marriage legislation gives them a new way to conceal themselves, and it's a way that can facilitate the adoption process. They might have to pretend to be something they aren't, but they're doing that already by pretending to be non-pedophiles.

Having gone through that process (adoption, not the other) I can tell you that there could be plenty that gets missed in the home study. Pedophiles are accomplished liars, and accomplished at hiding their behavior.

Bilkay's point was not that homosexuals can get away with something. He didn't even mention sexuality. His point was that pedophiles could now get away with their crime more easily by pretending to be homosexual.

BTW, there is an uncanny resemblance in the above exchange to Obama's reaction to Bush's statement the other day.

Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.

It's a false line of argument, easily refuted and as with all false arguments tends to harm the side of the person making it.

Using the secret pedophile argument is an appeal to the "homos will molest your kids" theme. As I said in my reply to him, the issue with pedophiles is also present for heterosexual couples. At best, you can hope that the people had been caught before and there is a record on one of them. Hopefully they will fail the screening process, but there's really no guarantee. But this is an argument at the margins. Setting policy based on the actions of a less than 1% potential population is not going to make good law.

Better to use an argument that applies to the whole population rather than the margins. Something like:
Marriage is a state that has a definition with a long tradition. That definition in our country is 1 adult man joined in matrimony to 1 adult woman. There are limits on what can fit within this definition. People who support homosexual marriage are supporting changing these limits. The problem is the arguments they use in changing the definition can also apply to MANY other groupings that want to legitimize their relationships by calling them marriage.

Multiple marriage among adults. The part of the definition that needs to change is the numbers. Otherwise it's adults choosing to live in a loving relationship. This definition could have a more legitimate claim than homosexual marriage due to it's acceptance in other cultures and even some cultures in the US. Still many people find this definition exceeds the limits they are willing to use for the term marriage.

Child marriages. This is a limit that requires removing Adult from the definitions. Most people find moving the limitations to this level reprehensible.

Some more ridiculous groupings. Marrying your pet, etc. These are just farcical extremes of the argument.

But the question of "Where do you set the limits?" for marriage is a good one. I prefer the traditional US definition.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I would say "it" was inferred by you, not implied by him.

You didn't respond to anything I wrote. You just repeated your own preconception, that pedophile is a secret word for homosexual. It isn't. You read your own prejudices into Bilkay's comment, and you continue to read it into mine. I can't speak for him, only for his comment, but I can speak for myself. It isn't there in either case.

(Especially within the context of this thread. Did you assume that BCL and his brother are homosexual, just because of the title of this blog?)

Just as Obama claimed that Bush was speaking about him, even though his name wasn't mentioned, you claim that Bilkay used pedophile to demonize homosexuals, even though he didn't mention sexuality at all. You're fencing with shadows.

Refer to my comment. I stand by it.

You say, "The problem is the arguments they use in changing the definition can also apply to MANY other groupings that want to legitimize their relationships by calling them marriage" would be part of a better argument. That's a reasonable statement, but just because someone doesn't use it doesn't mean his argument is invalid. In fact, Bilkay's comment merely mentioned one of those groupings. A small group, let's hope far below 1%, but the logic of his comment is unassailable, unless you change it to an argument he didn't make.

I repeat, YOU are the one who introduced the straw man by accusing Bilkay of writing something that doesn't appear in his comment. His comment referred to pedophiles. YOU are the one who made the assumption that he meant homosexuals. That says more about you than it does about him, just as Obama's protest tells us more about him than the original speech tells us about Bush.

I further add that your unwarranted assumption and consequent accusation ("The homosexual = pedophile argument doesn't fly. Try something else.") about Bilkay's statement is exactly what stifles legitimate debate about serious, but sensitive, subjects. Not that this specific part of the issue is particularly important, but it IS exemplary. And at this point, bilkay can speak for himself, if necessary, although I considered his response to you adequate.

As for the rest of your comment, I don't disagree.

Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.

children in a homosexual couple are exactly the same as the protections against heterosexual couples adopting children. There is a screening process to weed out unfit parents. The screenings only work if one of the parents has a record. It is hoped that they will not get ahold of a child to abuse.

The unfortunate fact is that a pedophile that has not been caught can not be screened out by the current system wether the couple appears to be heterosexual or homosexual.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.