“Truth often suffers more by the heat of its defenders than the arguments of its opposers.“
—William Penn

Sadly true in this case.  I feel the same way about the case to remove the cross from the hill overlooking San Diego.  While most people recognize the truth of cliches like “pick your battles” in everyday life, something in their brains fails to scale up properly where national issues are involved.  “Patience is a virtue” and we badly need that virtue in winning social progress.

Never mind ‘activist judges’ - activist citizens need to be reading Dale Carnegie’s “How to win friends and influence people”.

Consi, why did you post this? Maybe you do not realize it, but if you feel persecuted, going to the courts (in addition to going (in)to politics) is what you are supposed to do in a democracy.

Also, wasn’t it Martin Luther would said (in that sense) that sitting quietly and talking sensibly was not going to / did not produce any change?

It’s always easy to let an institutional injustice stay that way if nobody raises a fuss.

Ingolfson: Maybe you do not realize it, but if you feel persecuted, going to the courts (in addition to going (in)to politics) is what you are supposed to do in a democracy.

Exactly. I believe this outcome speaks less about the “extreme” activists than it does about the still-present bigotries and prejudices that exist in the minds of many Americans (politicians and everyday people alike).

Consi, why did you post this?

I posted it primarily for the benefit of a friend who who stops in from time to time here. 

The point being that if one has a goal, one must co-opt support from the other side.  The obvious implication of this as to how to advance an agenda seems to be lost on most iberal/progressive activists and writers.

Ing: Consi, why did you post this?

So we’d take our eyes off this ball?
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives (John Stuart Mill).

Consi: The point being that if one has a goal, one must co-opt support from the other side.

(We crossed in the ether.)
I agree with you - somehow we have to spin the benefits of enlightenment, in thought and action, to the xian conservatives.
It’s a pity most are still under the thumb, or programming, of the (ex-head of the inquisition) pope or any number of protest-ant priests, pastors and performers, many of whom still believe, but all give the same opinion, that homosexuality is a conscious choice one makes at some point in time.
In the early 80s I had a catholic macho alpha sales rep, one of two best I ever had (who later became my boss, then later on sacked me [I woulda sacked me too]  ) who hated gays and told me so.
I often tried to enlighten him to no avail. Then he had a son.
The son, now in his mid 20s, is gay and, I’m lead to believe, a terrific ballet dancer.
I hope he wasn’t ex-familied.
What goes round comes round.

I agree with Consi on this, because I believe the power of sales and public relations are underutilized in social progress.  While it is unlikely we’ll ever convince the radical fundiecrat leaders, we can demonstrate to their followers that we’re not the devil.  In fact, we’re their neighbors and they’ve been getting along with us just fine all along.

Of course in my case, I’m talking about atheism but I see parallels to gay rights and the same kind of cultural/religious barriers exist for both.  So I take common cause with gays in the matter of public acceptance.

Your neighborhood fundamentalist is a lot like anyone else.  Little good is served by trying to make them the devil; homophobia and atheiophobia are cultural and we can try to open holes in the cultural barriers.

Yes, legal barriers exist - much more for gays than for atheists.  There is a time to sue, but it should be carefully chosen, and it shouldn’t be the leading edge of strategy. Lawsuits don’t change hearts any more than military campaigns do.  We have an open society (so far) so let’s take advantage of it.

It seems few people recall what has brought an end to virtually every civilization in recorded history; “1. Natural disasters like drought, tsunami’s, earthquakes, massive flooding, plagues, and so on. #2. Corruption from the highest levels of society to the lowest.
History, as they say, always repeats itself and these “issues” are just evidence of another rise and fall of a “great society”. Nature seems to know what normal is and, of course, nature ALWAYS wins. We are witnessing what some people call, “The pussification of America” or any society; just fill in the blank. -Cactus

... even though some people are probably too stupid to be reached.

This just just proves how bigoted many judges are.

On a related topic,a cross was recently burned on a gay family’s front lawn and hate grafitti was painted on the house.  Cross burnings are normally investigated by the FBI and prosecuted as a hate crime.  The FBI refused to investigate this cross burning because the victims were gay.

The pussification of America� or any society; just fill in the blank. -Cactus

Cactus, I cannot even be sure what side of the fence (if any) you come down with those sentences.

But it seems like you consider gay rights as a signs of decadence?

Well, take the type of rights early US (white, male) citizens had. The ancient greek democrats would probably have called those dangerously loose and ‘liberal’ (if it was used as a curse word back then, probably they had something similar).

I hope that humanity climbs ever higher in what it considers just and fair. Sure, we slide back once in a while, but there seems to be a progression upwards. Maybe in a few millenia, we will be beyond physical stuff, and start arguing SOLELY about metaphyiscal unfairness

Cactus: It seems few people recall what has brought an end to virtually every civilization in recorded history

Time. It’s only natural. Every civilization will run its course eventually—including our own. The rights and/or status of gays has nothing to do with it.

Ingolfson: Cactus, I cannot even be sure what side of the fence (if any) you come down with those sentences.

You think that was fuzzy, you should see the entry he submitted. I’ve not published it because (A) it contained the whole of a copyrighted article without attribution or a link back and (B) it did nothing to support the claim he was making which was that if Hillary Clinton were to become President there’d be armed gangs running the street in open warfare after she stripped the Constitution of the Second Amendment.

Cactus: … pussification …

I like that word; a nice little pun on pacification although a little more pacified and specified.

if Hillary Clinton were to become President there’d be armed gangs running the street in open warfare after she stripped the Constitution of the Second Amendment.

This sounds rather right-wing bat-shit crazy nut-job-ish.

The article in question came on the heels of Hillary’s latest “revelation” to give criminals (broad term) the right to vote. Ironically, the “what if” happened in Sao Paulo, Brazil the same month she had made this idea public, May 2006. And as far as taking sides on the Gay Marriage thing, is it even an issue? Just a lot of time, energy, and money wasted for a non-issue. The term “the pussification of America” came to my attention while I was in the 82nd Airborne. In other words, you can’t be so goddamned liberal that everything becomes too difficult.

you can’t be so goddamned liberal that everything becomes too difficult.

Yeah, it’s so bothersome to have to stop and think before jumping into another war or executing someone who might be innocent…

I’d toss the pussification word onto George Carlin, since I last heard him say it in 1999 on HBO; “You’re All Diseased”

Cactus: In other words, you can’t be so goddamned liberal that everything becomes too difficult.

First of all, a problem for whom? Second of all, why the hell not?

Double-dipping: I just realized that my “first of all” point makes little sense. What I meant to type was “too difficult for whom?“

Dammit, Cactus, your incomprehensibility is rubbing off on me! 

Cactus: ... to give criminals (broad term) the right to vote

And why not?
If you want to deny the vote to those still in gaol, I suppose that’s cool.
But, I read many of your citizens weren’t allowed to vote in the last ‘election’ coz they had the same name as a released criminal - someone who’s done his time; paid his price.
I learnt these people actually have to front another judge to prove they should have their right to vote reinstated.
But if you’re wearing the wrong clothes or the wrong skin colour and front the wrong judge, you ain’t got a shit show in China of getting your right to vote back.
I think that’s just piss-poor ... and small minded.
You’ve currently got about 1% of your population in gaol. Would it be a stretch that 5% of your population has been in goal and therefore lost voting rights for all time until ...
How little brained is that? 

And as far as taking sides on the Gay Marriage thing, is it even an issue?

I’d hazard a guess and suggest it is for gays who are denied the choice to get married.

S-Sadie: Dammit, Cactus, your incomprehensibility is rubbing off on me!

Me too. I understood exactly what you meant.

It’s all clear now!  Drug laws are disproportionately applied to people of color.  Presto!  Fewer black voters!

Cactus: The article in question came on the heels of Hillary’s latest “revelation� to give criminals (broad term) the right to vote.

Hmmm. It’s a shame there was nothing in your article to suggest that was your point to begin with. We’re not mind readers. If you’ve got a point you need to make it otherwise we’re all going to keep looking at you funny in that “when did he get off the short bus” way.

Swordsbane:

On another thread, you predicted that the issue of gay marriage would play out in the courts.  The whole thrust of this thread was that the attempted end run around the people by going to the courts, failed.  There are a few cases in the pipeline still, but, with the possible exception of one, the result will be the same.  Legally speaking, there is no constitutional argument for gay marriage. Notice the activists are not going to the Supreme Court. They know they will lose.

Consi: ... there is no constitutional argument for gay marriage.

1. I suppose there is constitutional argument against gay marriage, that’s more than 10 years old?
2. Why is it an issue? Either civil law is defined by the needs and rights of citizens, or civil laws will be placed under the dominion of religious laws and gay marriage will remain banned.
3. What are xians so afraid of?
4. How can gay marriage hurt you?
5. Why should the xian viewpoint be taken over the moral viewpoint? Please don’t assume they’re the same. Xians do not own the only moral viewpoint. In fact historically, and dare I say even currently, the xian viewpoint is rather like the Muslim one. Extreme.
6. I thought all men (and women?) were created equal and had the right to pursue happiness.
7. I read that all the founding fathers were not xians and never mentioned god. Do you disagree with this?

LuckyJohn19: 4. How can gay marriage hurt you?

It can’t.

Maybe it could hurt me in my old age a little bit, and certainly it could hurt my children.  But, by and large, gay marriage won’t have any harmful effect on me.

For that matter, abortion doesn’t hurt me.  I am comfortably past the “Age of Legal Infanticide”, and am in absolutely no personal danger of being aborted.  There is no rational, self-serving reason I can offer for opposing abortion.

However, I believe there’s more to making ethical decisions than “What’s in it for me?  How will this hurt me?“  I oppose both gay marriage and abortion for altruistic reasons: Niether can hurt me, but both can hurt somebody.

Abortion won’t hurt me, but it has certainly hurt the 40 million or so children who have been aborted in this country since Roe v. Wade.  So I work to end abortion, even though it will never hurt me or my family.

Gay marriage won’t hurt me or my family either, but it certainly will hurt children brought up in gay households.

Back in the 60’s and 70’s, we were told that the whole “lifelong, monogamous marriage” thing was pointless and anachronistic.  Children didn’t need to be raised by their mother and father: “Just Mom” was fine, or perhaps “Mom and step-Dad and weekend Dad”, or “Grandma and Mom’s boyfriend”, or maybe “Mom, a monthly check, and usually a birthday card”.  Whatever was convenient.  By “convenient”, of course I mean convenient to the adults.  The important thing was that adults should never be put out or inconvenienced merely for the sake of their children.

So we tried an enormous social experiment, and the subject of this experiement was no less than our own children.  No-fault divorce meant that parents could abandon their children for no particular reason other than “I felt like it”.  Not to worry, experts told us, the kids will be fine with whatever parents happened to be available.

And as it turned out, the kids were not fine.  They were more likely to abuse drugs and alchohol.  They were less likely to graduate from high school.  They were much more likely to commit suicide.  Girls were far more likely to be sexually assaulted by the parade of unrelated stepdads and boyfriends moving into and out of Mom’s house.  These kids grew up and found it very difficult to form stable, long-term relationships of their own.

Now we’re getting the same line of bull from those on the left.  “Two Dads” or “Two Moms” or “bi-Dad plus a random assortment of boyfriends and girlfriends”... They assure us that these are all perfectly good alternate family structures.  Never mind the fact that people who enter homosexual relationships can’t even keep their own personal lives in order: Let’s “marry” them, toss a few kids into the mix, and hope for the best.

Every time we’ve listened to the left about how family structures should be changed in the past half-century, the result has been misery and harm to the children of those families.  Now the supporters of gay marriage wonder why people won’t vote for their wacky ideas?