3
   

GOP weighs anti-gay plank for '04 platform

 
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 12:25 am
I must recant. Sofia, I am sorry. I did not follow my own advice and I wrote off the top of my head and did not go to a source.

Sofia, I said 20% because I could almost swear that I have read 60 Million articles by 60 million different gay people in the last ten years( or maybe it just seemed like60 million articles by 60 million different gay people) but , anyway, I decided to go to a source.

Judge Richard Posner quotes sources in his book-Overcoming Law- specifically in the article- "Economics and Homosexuality"

Judge Posner says:

P. 555

"Data from a large sex survey being conducted by a group at the University of Chicago headed by William Laumann of the Sociology Department. The survey concludes that only about 2-5% of sexually active men and 1-2% of sexually active women are currently homosexual.

Then, of course, the brilliant Judge Posner, anticipating objections writes:

"The usual objections to inferring the percentage of homosexuals from surveys is that the"Closeted" homosexuals will conceal their sexual preference from however skilled an interviewer. If so, this would imply that the more tolerant the society, the larger the percentage of homosexuals that would be revealed by surveys.

There is no such relation.

In fact, surveys of sexual practices in Scandanavian countries which are more tolerant of homosexuality than the United States is, reveal a lesser frequency of homosexual behavior than the US survey data do."


There are some data for you, Sofia!!!
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 12:28 am
D' Artagnan- If Posner is right, how many gay votes will Bush lose?

I don't think many of them voted for him anyway.

But, the Christian Coalition( 30 Million votes??) would fall away in large numbers.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 09:08 am
30 million!?
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 11:19 am
More grist for the mill:

I received this by email, and so have not provided a link to the source on-line, though I am reasonably certain it could be found on-line. NOTE: I am sharing this because it is on-topic; my posting it should not be interpeted as blanket agreement with the author's point of view.

(BOLD MINE)
Quote:
The Washington Times
Friday, September 26, 2003

Save marriage in court
By Richard Lessner

Proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment are right: This is a political fight that is worth having. But they are wrong in thinking an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman will save the institution from the depredations of the postmodern deconstructionists.

This is because the problem is not with the Constitution, but the courts.

Nothing in the text of the Constitution suggests the federal courts have the authority to define marriage for the 50 states. Indeed, our entire legal history powerfully reinforces the idea that marriage law is a matter of state's rights.

Yet the amendment's advocates, including such first-rate legal minds as Robert Bork, Hadley Arkes of Amherst College and Robbie George of Princeton, fear activist federal courts will impose homosexual "marriage" on the states. This concern is real and should not be underestimated.

Even so, amending the Constitution will not resolve the problem or dissipate the threat. Judges who are unconstrained by the actual text of the Constitution, the doctrine of federalism, or America's legal history are unlikely to be deterred by a mere amendment. If such judges are willing to ignore the plain language of the Constitution in other circumstances, why would they suddenly be obliged to respect the text of a marriage amendment?


They wouldn't, and this is why the federal marriage amendment ultimately will not save marriage.

Result-oriented judges have shown over and over that they are willing to wield raw judicial power to achieve their desired social ends. Justice Antonin Scalia made exactly this point in his ringing dissent in Lawrence vs. Texas, the anti-sodomy law decision that Justice Scalia prophetically warned laid the predicate for federal pre-emption of state marriage law.

Other recent cases are likewise suggestive. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor explicitly admitted in the University of Michigan affirmative action case that the 14th Amendment prohibits the government from discriminating or showing favoritism on the basis of race. Yet in affirming government-sanctioned race discrimination for university admissions, Justice O'Connor averred that a compelling state interest in diversity overrides the amendment.

One can almost hear Justice O'Connor on the federal marriage amendment: Yes, the plain language of the amendment bars the government from extending legal recognition to any union other than that between one man and one woman for the purpose of marriage. Yet a compelling state interest in promoting equality, and growing public tolerance of alternative sexual arrangements among consenting adults, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the marriage amendment does not ban legal recognition of same-sex unions, plural marriage, polygamy and other novelties. The equity argument trumps a rigid textualism.

One need hardly note other recent examples of runaway courts trashing federal and state constitutions. Such examples could include the 9th "Circus" Court's bizarre ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance and its unwarranted intervention in the California recall election.

And what of the New Jersey Supreme Court ripping up the Garden State's election law to substitute Frank Lautenberg on the ballot for the imploding Bob Torricelli?

Or consider a federal court arrogating to itself the power to decide what kinds of monuments will adorn state government buildings in Georgia. Is such lawless jurisprudence likely to be cowed by a marriage amendment?

Clearly, then, the problem is not a defective Constitution, but a renegade judiciary that the other two branches of government have failed to restrain under the separation-of-powers doctrine. Such activist, politicized judges are unlikely to be deterred by another amendment to a Constitution they already hold in contempt.

Still, the fight over the federal marriage amendment is one that might be worth having. America is deeply divided between those who espouse traditional Judeo-Christian moral values and those who favor a post-Christian, postmodern secularist vision of society. Pat Buchanan was dead right about the culture war in his 1992 Republican Convention speech.

The forces of traditional values have been in retreat and losing ground for four decades. The defense of marriage is the last fall-back position. If we cannot save marriage, the indispensable social institution, then we will have lost the American culture to the sexual libertines and radical secularists.

So, as my friends Hadley Arkes and Robbie George argue persuasively, this is a fight worth fighting in order to catalyze public support for an institution under assault. But let's not fool ourselves: Unless we restrain the judicial oligarchs, the marriage amendment will not save marriage.

Richard Lessner is executive director of the American Conservative Union.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 06:48 pm
A thoughtful, polite discussion regarding gay rights ....... my thanks to all.


As others have said (above), I think use of the word "marriage" has almost become the issue.

I strongly believe that gay people ought to have the right to become legally united to a chosen partner. I personally don't care what the union is called, as long as it represents the full legal counterpart of civil "marriage".

THE FULL LEGAL COUNTERPART.

The Church, on the other hand, can decide whatever it likes regarding its own use of the word "marriage".

As far as social "tolerance/acceptance" (words I dislike), this cannot be legislated, and as with racial, ethnic, gender, and religious differences, it will take people time to become comfortable with this expression of diversity.


(The reason I dislike the words "tolerance" and "acceptance" when used in this context is that they seem to suggest people of a "superior" persuasion putting up with people of an inferior one.)
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 07:39 pm
Well, yes, but as a bisexual male, I fully believe in tolerating all of the inferior and benighted hetero and homosexuals out there. I realize we can't all be perfect. Wink
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 07:44 pm
Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 08:20 pm
Listen Hobitbob. Just because you have a much larger dating pool is no reason to go around with your nose in the air.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 08:20 pm
Wink
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 10:50 pm
Why does it take so long to remove out-dated and unfair laws?
Relationships are formed solely on the consent of two people; it is no one's business but the consenting adults who agree to form a partnership. As usual, government legislating morality becomes absurd in its strenuous and tyranical self-righteousness.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2003 01:19 pm
Acquiunk wrote:
Scrat you point is well taken, but marriage comes with a number advantages such as work benefits, reduced insurance costs, inheritance rights etc. A legally recognized marriage makes those benefits available.

And that is just one reason why I favor a reform more sweeping than most liberals in this area; a civil union established by the government (I prefer that the states do this, but that's a detail), providing all legal benefits associated with marriage and (here's where I go further than most) available to any number of consenting adults, regardless of gender.

I see no more reason to limit such unions to pairs of individuals than I see to limit such unions to one woman and one man. If any group wants to form a cohesive, nurturing and stable family unit, why not recognize them as a family unit in a legal sense?
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2003 01:33 pm
Scrat, that is exactly the point I made earlier in this discussion. . At least in New England marriages were only civil unions in the early 17th century.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2003 03:00 pm
Marriage is a civil bond -- it's merely whether one can obtain a license or not. Otherwise, the ceremony is not specifically religious -- a judge or a captain of a ship can perform the ceremony for instance.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2003 11:30 pm
Diane's comments reminded me that there is another tack government could--and perhaps should--take; simply do away with government involvement in the issue. If no one received special (or different) treatment under the law simply for being married, the issue would be moot.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2003 02:05 am
I think Scrat's suggestion is well taken. No special privileges for anyone.

I must, however, indicate that I have changed my mind.

Why? I just saw a great play by one of the leading writers in our country- Edward Albee, who is gay.

The play was the Tony Award Winner- Who is Sylvia/

In the play, a man falls in love with a goat.

Albee's character makes a well reasoned plea that he not be discriminated against because, well, he was really in love with that goat. The love was not platonic but sexually consumatted.

Albee's message of tolerance obviously could be widened and probably will be:

Why not?
It's no one's business how I express my sexuality.

Bestiality? Why not?

Man-Boy Love? The Greeks did it, why not us?

Necrophilia? The dead body wouldn't know it.

Just why, why,why, can't I marry my sister???

The Puritans continually try to limit our freedoms.

Free sex for all, anytime, anyplace with any man, woman , beast , child or dead body...
And please don't go quoting those ridiculous old fashioned religious norms to me.

And that old saw about the family being the basis of Society?

Bourgeois attempt to control free spirits.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2003 09:09 am
Italgo - Years ago when the Internet wasn't even called the Internet and AOL version 1.0 ran under a separate GUI called Geoworks (remember that, folks?) I had a run-in on-line with a man who called me a bigot because I did not recognize pedophilia as just another lifestyle choice.

But, let me ask you a question... does the fact that any good idea can be taken to a harmful extreme mean it should be taken nowhere at all? I have a brother-in-law who--besides all the other things that make him who he is--happens to be black. It wasn't too long ago that people thought letting whites and blacks marry was going too far.

At the core of this issue lies our societal norms, which are and must always be evolving. I think we have to watch where they evolve and consider what harm or positive effect a given change might have; drag our feet or plant them firmly where we think it best to do so; but in the end (to quote Jethro Tull) "the train, it won't stop going... no way to slow down."
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2003 09:13 am
hello, folks, we're talking about consenting adults.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2003 09:19 am
And Tull! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2003 09:22 am
Tull?
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2003 12:40 pm



Scrat wrote: "and (here's where I go further than most) available to any number of consenting adults"

On the issue of medical benefits alone , this would be a nightmare, unless a system could be devised where not all partners in a multi partner union would be eligible for benefits. Then again, it can be argued that a family with eight children pays no more for health care than a family with two children, and that might not seem fair. If our definition of family evolves to include 1 or 2 adults and some or no children, we will just need to allow our health care system to support that definition.


Sophia wrote: "Allowing these people the right to marry doesn't have to signify our personal approval-- It just means we won't expend any energy denying them equal rights under the law."

I, too, agree with this statement. Personally, it's very uncomfortable for me to see a sixty year old person marry a twenty year old, but I certainly would never advocate denying them the right to do so.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/24/2021 at 04:08:27