• I never said it did violated my freedom,liberty, or quality of life.

    that's not my template.

    What is "gay" anyway?

    Is madonna gay? She kisses girls, but marries men.

    Is Jim Mcgreevey gay? He married a woman and then had relations with men.

    There are people who have lived "gay" and then switched to being normal.

    There are people who were normal, and switched to being gay.

    There are bisexuals.
    There are transgendered.

    The point is, we are only talking about what a person declares and acts on sexually.

    They can change their minds at any time. For whatever reason.

    That is not a civil rights issue.

    We have a right to define our culture.
    Others trying to make it a case of "bigotry" isn't persuasive.

    Why aren't I a bigot for being against polygamy?
    for being against incest?
    for being against many other things?

  • If you want to use the standard of the government not being able to ban something unless we can demonstrate harm to others, then you have just changed everything.

    I don't accept that standard.

    Think about it:

    Football clearly hurts people. So it can be banned? Should it be banned?

    Alcohol use clearly hurts people. Was that banning appropriate?

    How does Incest harm you?

    How does polygamy harm you?

    How does animal cruelty harm you?

    How does a parent abusing their child harm you?

    Try to think beyond this topic and see the precedent you set.


    I believe in fundamental human rights that are inalienable.  Beyond that, I believe in democracy and power of ideas.

    I think the gay rights groups smartly linked their view to blacks and women and have taken that approach.

    Doesn't make it so.

    Many groups can do the same thing, doesn't mean they should get status.

  • They did make a law:

    "Today's decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the third in the country, to allow same-sex marriages."

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article /20090403/NEWS/90403010

    Today: In Iowa the law is that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman only.

    in 3 weeks per the court: In Iowa the law is that marriage is between any 2 adults (not related)

    They could have struck down the marriage statute-- halt any more marriages and forced the legislature to make a constitutional law. But they didn't.  

  • 2 points to the diary:

    1. I'm against the gay rights agenda, and resent the civil rights assault.

    2.  Achieving their gains through the courts is the worst way because it manipulates our democracy.  Also, that none of us (democrats) would want Conservative judges voting to make abortion illegal because the unborn suddenly had human rights.

  • I don't have the right to marry whomever I want:

    I can't marry children. Even if there is mutual love.

    I can't marry my mother,father, brother or sister.  Even if there is mutual love.

    I can't marry someone who is married to someone else.  Even if there is mutual love.


    There are rules in society.

    We all can agree/disagree.
    But judges shouldn't be able to take a view and make it law.

  • I agree with Roe v. Wade and think that is bad activism too.

    I agree with many environmental rulings and think that is bad activism too.

    It's called trying to be principled.


    On topic.  We the people through our government have a right to regulate behavior.

    I disagree with the concept that this is a "civil right"

    I disagree with the government banning sports betting.  That is a relationship I can't have legally.  But it's not a civil right.

  • All constitutional principles are enforceable against the majority. Irrespective of the politics.  That is the point of having a constitution.

    I whole-heartedly agree with that ideal.

    The point is, this is an abstraction from the minds of judges.  They are being political.

    They are taking an idea from today and elevating it to a constitutional principle.

    Similar to the S.C. with the Heller gun case.  They are doing the same thing from the right.

    Both cases happen to go against the majority.
    D.C. voters want a ban on guns.

    I don't believe in an individual right to carry a gun. And even if I did, it would be subject to very many restrictions so as to make it pretty much meaningless.

    Both of these are cases where judges are taking the vote away from people.

    I happen to disagree with both of them.

    I support gun control.
    I'm against gay rights.

    But even with Roe v. Wade.

    I support abortion rights, but think it should be in the political arena.  Again, even if I think that it would be unconstitutional to ban every single abortion, it certainly should not be up to judges to define the parameters.

  • maybe we can use tactics to block overturning a law that was imposed by unelected judges.

    Think about Heller gun control decision.

    As a democrat, I think it was an outrage to overturn the will of D.C. voters.

    But if Democrats support the idea of imperial judges, then the courts become nothing but politics.

  • there are no "gays".

    they are either men or women.

    And there is one law for all of us.

  • when I can't watch a college basketball game with my son


    watch the superbowl with dad, and family

    without cringing at the commercials, and having to be ready to turn the channel at any minute to avoid nonsense,

    we need the government to promote better moral values.

    We had one advertiser for example in texas that wanted to promote marital infidelity.

    It was turned down, but I think that was because it was so blantant.

  • so for example, do you agree with the supreme court that over-rules gun control laws, like the one in D.C.?

    I don't.

    I happen to support gun control.

    But even if I didn't.
    That is a bogus court decision.

    There's no way to "interpret" a document meant for the 1700's in the 2000's.

    The world is very different now.

    If we allowed people to "bear arms" it could mean the end of civil society.

    That wasn't the case back then.

    But this is an example of judicial activism that is wrong from the right.

  • For example,

    Scot Peterson was charged with 2 murders:
    Staci Peterson and an unborn child
    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/jo hnson200402050947.asp

    If he could be charged with the murder of a person, why would it be a stretch to think judges should protect that person before the murder?

    Look I'm against gay rights whether enacted through legislature (Vermont), forced legislation, or judges.

    But certainly, in a federal republic this should be an issue for the people and not judges.

    If not, then there are numerous issues where judges should be acting to protect civil and human rights.

  • I'm sure it's possible, but not easy.

    Not on the top sit-coms.
    Not in the movies.

    If the private sector won't do it.

    I believe in the power of the government.

  • there are solid majorites in many states that would grant equal human and civil rights to the unborn.

    I'm not one of them.

    But for you to think it is crazy, shows just how out of touch you are.

    If you don't know that an Alabama Supreme court might do just that, and then it spread.

    Study the history. Look at the polls.

    That's why it is important to have principles not just for the moment or for your cause, but that you can live be when you think "that's the craziest thing I have read here"

  • I'm pro choice and I think roe v wade was a bad decision.

    It was a political decision.

    This is not me griping about courts because I didn't like the decision (I don't).

    I believe in fair debate. Not judicial decree.

    I'm against the death penalty.
    Yet, when the Supreme Court outlawed it in the 1970's I think that was wrong.

    I think it is wrong when they make up rules now about who  can/can't be executed.

    They are legislating.

    We have legislatures who are responsible to the people are so often to do that.


Advertise Blogads