Why do you feel threatened by homosexuality?

I don’t.  I do feel threatened about using the courts to bypass the will of the people.  That is dangerous precedent indeed. 

Nobody, but nobody reacts as vociferously as you do on that issue unless they feel threatened.

I of course have never heard this before here. Assuming that I am vociferous (which I’m confounded about how I could be loud or noisy when I have not made any noise, but accuracy is beside the point in any character assissinations), it must follow that any individual that acts vociferously must feel threatened.  That is the only possible inference to draw. You know, believing strongly in what you believe, well that of course is just poppycock.

You should be ashamed of yourself cg.  If not for making such statments, then for not owning the statement that you want to insinuate.  Here, let me paint the picture for the outline you drew with your unstated statement. Consigliere feels threatened because he is insecure about his masculinity. There you go, the insinuation has been written for you.  This way, even those that are bit touched can figure out where you wanted to go with that.  No need to thank me for finishing your oh so original character attack.

You know, I expect bullshit like that from Brock (see above) but not from you. 

Our society has norms for “appropriate” gender roles that are quite rigid. True, they are less rigid than those in some societies (notably Islamic and Latino cultures), but by a Western standard they are fairly traditional. It is a rare individual who is confident enough in his/her sexuality that he/she is truly not threatened by the very notion of homosexuality; this is especially evident in men. After all, our culture values what is “masculine” far more highly than that which is deemed “feminine;“ men are still very much expected to think and act in traditionally masculine ways.

I really have no idea why Consi seems to have such a problem with gay marriage. Since he won’t tell us, I suspect that it is a combination of his religious beliefs along with the influences of our society’s compulsory heterosexuality.

Consi, I make no assumption about your motives; your explanation that the courts are subverting “the will of the people” is good enough for me.  But that is absurd.  The courts are here to represent the constitution, not the people. Legislators represent the people, and if the law is bad the people - real people affected by the law - can challenge it in court.  Then the court will measure it against the constitution. 

Yes, you can disagree as to what is constitutional.  But that is a different thing than saying courts should represent the people.  If that, then many evils should have the court’s sanction.

DOF:

You’d be well served to listen to the link.

Consigliere Wrote:

You know, I expect bullshit like that from Brock (see above) but not from you. 

I’ve been browsing around here, and I’ve noticed, you are one of the biggest pricks I’ve ever seen.  You act like some sort of parent/teacher figure to other adults, and taking what they say, and acting like their opinions aren’t good enough to be expressed. And nobody cares that you correct spelling, seriously, do you feel like you deserve some sort of reward for correcting grammar?  I’ve never been aggravated by such an online ego until now.

CASE IN POINT - You = Asshole.

I do feel threatened about using the courts to bypass the will of the people.  That is dangerous precedent indeed.

It’s good to be the king.

I’ve been browsing around here, and I’ve noticed, you are one of the biggest pricks I’ve ever seen.

To quote cg:

Nobody, but nobody reacts as vociferously as you do on that issue unless they feel threatened.

Why are you so insecure when reading my posts?

I’m going to go out on a limb here (for clarification’s sake) and clear up a misconception about Consi (this comes from reading between the lines, so please correct me If I’m wrong, Consi.)

I don’t believe he has any personal issues with gay marriage. I think his issues rest entirely with making sure democracy functions that way he believes that it should. If the clear majority of people are against gay marriage, then gay marriage must not be allowed. Getting the court involved to overturn the will of the people would be bad. The only way to get gay marriage to be accepted, wold be to gradually win the hearts and minds of the people on the issue, until we have a majority in favor of gay marriage.

Does that about sum up your thoughts, Consig, or am I off base here?

KPG:

I’m not a fan of same-sex marriage and wouldn’t vote for it if it were on the ballot.  Yet, I’ve promised to show up with bells on to attend a marriage ceremony should NY ever enact legislation allowing same-sex marriage.

No matter how hard some try to paint it as so, my position on same-sex marriage doesn’t make me a bigot.  No matter how hard some try to paint it as so, my position on attending a friend’s wedding does not make me a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  I’m at a loss why anyone finds the two to be at odds.
   
As regards the issue in this thread, I believe that should the people vote to enact same-sex marriage, then by all means, that state should have same-sex marriage.  By the same token, I think it’s a horrible idea to attempt to foist same-sex marriage upon the people in a manner that allows the voters absolutely no voice in the matter.  These positions are not at odds either.

KPG, without fail in this thread, those who have rendered personal attacks, have done so without taking on what I offered in the way of discussion or analysis.  Instead, it’s a hit and run or a hit and switch.  The hit an switch being a substitution of their personal feelings for the legal issue.  I find it telling. 

Yet, I still wonder why they do it.  ufreker has been doing a bang up of presenting the other side’s wrong, but well intentioned, position.  They only detract from the shine that he creates. So, as a practical matter, I guess I’m in favor of more personal attacks.

Consi: ‘You’d be well served to listen to the link.‘

I did listen to the link, and both Breyer and Scalia seemed to be trying to figure out the best approach to representing the constitution.  Did you assume that once I heard them I would naturally prefer the same one that you prefer?  ‘Cause I’m guessing you liked the one with the better hair.

It did seem that Scalia felt the constitution is an exercise in logic.  He probably sleeps better than Breyer - he said once you take the history into account, the decision is “a piece of cake” and “easy as pie”. 

I agreed with you right up front that it was not a great idea to try to decide gay marriage in the courts.  I accepted your stated motive for your opposition to it.  But based on many of your posts I have read, I doubt you would be there with bells on should a state legislature decide in favor of gay marriage.  And in any case I do think that it is a matter of equal protection.

Consi, there is something that you either have consistently failed to understand or that you have ignored all this time. The issue of homosexuality—and gay marriage in particular in this case—is extremely emotionally-charged, and people are wont to develop black-and-white feelings in response to it. For many people, if you are pro-gay marriage you are an extremist who is hell-bent on destroying the traditional values that this culture cherishes; for others, if you are against gay marriage you are a homophobic bigot who is living in a bygone era.

For a long time I adopted the latter stance, but recently I have come to realize that there are shades of gray in this and all other controversial issues. I do believe that to institutionally deprive gays and lesbians the right to marry constitutes bigotry, but that does not necessarily mean that anyone who is uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage is automatically a bigot. I am willing to accept that you are not a homophobe (at least not in the popular sense of the term) simply because you do not believe in gay marriage.

At the same time, you knew very well that posting this topic in an online community where many—if not most—of the regular subscribers are in favor of gay marriage would entail heated, sensitive, and at times downright ugly debate. I know that if I were to go over to a conservative Christian weblog and post an entry in favor of legalized abortion I would at times be branded as a “baby-killer.“ You should be likewise be aware that your stance on gay marriage is going to result in some people deeming you a “homophobe.“. I’m not saying that this characterization is accurate and I’m not excusing those who have used it, but you and I both know that it is inevitable.

For now, I am done with you on this issue. You have your beliefs, I have mine, and nothing in the foreseeable future is going to change this.

You should be ashamed of yourself cg.  If not for making such statments, then for not owning the statement that you want to insinuate.  Here, let me paint the picture for the outline you drew with your unstated statement. Consigliere feels threatened because he is insecure about his masculinity. There you go, the insinuation has been written for you.  This way, even those that are bit touched can figure out where you wanted to go with that.  No need to thank me for finishing your oh so original character attack.

You know, I expect bullshit like that from Brock (see above) but not from you.  downer

Consigliere:  Honestly, I was not questioning your masculinity.  I would think that you (and any number of people on this board are, well, *beyond* that shallow (and threadbare)thinking.  It was an honest question, and you answered it by pointing out that you were afraid of the courts circumventing the will of the people.  I can understand how you might have gotten that impression because I went off on a rant of my own after asking that, which (looking back with my 20/20 glasses on) I rightly should have saved for a separate post. 

Since I don’t believe in any higher authority by which I could swear on peril of my soul, I am just going to have to ask you to take my word for the fact that I was asking for information/insight, not takinga cheap shot at you.  You don’t bang on a Bible when it comes to homosexuality, so you’re unique in my experience, and I was surprised that anyone could make a purely secular case against same sex marriage.  And you’ve been pretty stalwart in defending your position, so that made it all the more puzzling—what is your stake in it if not religious belief?  That kind of thing.

So thank you for your answer, any my apologies for not “firewalling” my question to you and my opinions on the subject by putting them in separate posts.

I am just going to have to ask you to take my word for the fact that I was asking for information/insight, not takinga cheap shot at you.

Okay.

A few thoughts here:

The legal arguments of gay marriage proponents are often misrepresented, and I was trying to present the logic behind them here as accurately as possible, as I understand it. That isn’t to say that I necessarily find the arguments legally viable, though I certainly find them compelling.

I think it is highly unlikely that any effort to institute gay marriage through a Supreme Court decision will be successful any time soon- current precedent just seems not to support such a ruling. I don’t know if this will always be the case; just as the opposing rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education could arguably be attributed to a gradual shift in perspective, rather than major changes in the law or a transformation of the role of the Court, so might our developing understanding of human sexuality and social organization have an effect on the interpretation of relevant precedential rulings such as Baker v. Nelson (belated long sentence alert!). The Brown decision in fact is still criticized by some for exactly this reason, but few people seriously contend that it created a judicial dictatorship of the kind Consi describes; similarly, I think the Court could eventually rule for gay marriage without completely destroying the separation of powers. However I agree with Consi that the legal arguments we’ve heard so far probably do not stand on their merits, although we might have different understandings of why this is the case.

I’ve assumed throughout that we’re talking about cases at the federal level; as for challenges pertaining to state constitutions, I suppose the arguments would have to be dissected on a case-by-case basis. I doubt Consi approves of these either, but some of them might have a much stronger legal basis.

I do think that even if the Constitutional arguments for gay marriage aren’t likely to sway the Supreme Court, they do make a good case for how the prohibition of gay marriage is fundamentally un-American in principle; moreover, I think that the righteousness and social utility of marriage equality can be supported by any number of arguments from a legal perspective.

More later…

The issue of homosexuality—and gay marriage in particular in this case—is

a hot button issue.

Very few people will sit on the fence and even a civil debate will never amount to a meeting of minds. It’s nothing but an endless cycle of mounting defenses, attacking the other’s defenses, and rebuilding defensive walls when one gets knocked down. It’s intrinsic that the opponents are pigheaded, obstinate, and immoral for refusing to accept the validity of one’s arguments.

This particular hot button topic is just one of many examples that are focus on the relationship between majority and minority. Everybody can figure out for him- or herself if appealing to the courts is an abuse of the justice system or a failsafe.

Consi’s basic premise appears to be “might makes right” and that minorities should be content with the alms offered by the majority. He seems to favor an approach where the minority must try to effect change in a manner that longest preserves the majority’s will, ideally indefinitely. It’s a comfortable position to take if you’re part of the majority.

Many others here are more sensitive with regards to the tyranny of the majority. Being a member of some minority or other helps to cement opinions.

Anyway, I’m not sure there’s anything to be gained by pursuing this topic further. This very thread can be construed as an example of “concern trolling” if one is nasty-minded and Consi’s remark about willfully engaging in demagogy (if I got that right) doesn’t help.

This is one of the topics were there’ll never be a universally accepted consensus; now that the topic has been raised, all I see is neverending trench warfare.

Consi: You know, I expect bullshit like that from Brock (see above) but not from you.

Now and then I fail to edit myself and end up posting brash remarks. I have no doubt I’ve made some enemies here because of that. Perhaps I could find a more mature way of communicating with you.

Having said that, I remain convinced that you are obsessed with the subject matter of the entry. I have no idea why you cannot see how illiberal you seem regarding an issue that means so much to myself and others here. Your dispassionately offered but suspiciously impassioned remarks can seem as brash as anything I might have said.

To put it bluntly (yes, maybe even brashly), in spite of numerous communications with us, you are still a stranger and a two-dimensional entity to me. I want to see you fleshed out and innocently imperfect. I want to recognize a spark of empathy in you but have been unable to.

if a right was not enshrined and wasn’t understood to exist at the time of the writing by those doing the writing, then it is not up to the judges to create said rights

In Western democracies a right is normally taken to exist unless legilation specifically prohibits it. Is there any such law?

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I believe these two Amendments in the Bill of Rights cover that.

Ulfreker said: the prohibition of gay marriage is fundamentally un-American

On the federal level, I would agree with you, but for different reasons.  I wouldn’t agree at the state level.

elwed said: Consi’s basic premise appears to be “might makes right”

If you: 1) equate one vote for one person; and 2) are stating that the ability to obtain a majority within the voting public equals might; I would say yes to your assessment.  Which, by the way, is how the whole election process in the United States works.  Just one of the “small details” that underlies the basic premise of the democratic system that we have in place.

Brock said: in spite of numerous communications with us, you are still a stranger and a two-dimensional entity to me. I want to see you fleshed out and innocently imperfect. I want to recognize a spark of empathy in you but have been unable to.

Here that is all I can likely ever be Brock.  As you know, the regulars are overwhelimingly liberal atheists, some classifying themselves as libertarian atheists.  The positions that I have are almost universely minority positions here at SEB, with the exception of evolution. So my position is somewhat unique.

When I enter or start a thread here, it is with the full understanding that I will likely be the only representing that viewpoint.  Darryl Cantrell happened to be an exception to the rule in this thread, but Darryl is sometimes more problematic than he is helpful.  Should the thread generate interest there will be 5-10 regulars, commenting in tandem, picking up on a particular line of thought and carrying the ball forward.  There will be another 10-20 drivebys during the lifetime of the thread.  The drive-by comments can range from a thoughtful point to bombastic drivel.

There are fair number of passerbys that never comment, I want to ensure that I adequately represent the viewpoint that I’m endorsing.  That is my paramount goal when I post.  Given that, and the circumstances as they exist, I’ve found it difficult to engage with most here on a personal level.  The site really doesn’t lend itself to that from where I stand.  At best, there are good natured jabs.  LJ and DOF are examples of that.  Outside of that, and excluding interactions with elwed and GM, who are singularly unique exceptions, my purpose in posting is to respond in a meaningful manner to a commenter or poster about the subject and to raise through humor, sarcasm, or cold logic, flaws in reasoning, or factual errors, or whatever it is that I’m taking aim at time.

That is really what my purpose is here.  As obstructionist as that may be to the choir singing that sometimes goes on, Les has been kind enough to allow me to give voice to the other side.

Brock, although my emotions may be tempered in my posts, I assure that I bleed when I’m cut.  I laugh.  I cry.  It’s there, just not here.

In Western democracies a right is normally taken to exist unless legilation specifically prohibits it

Nobody holds that the states don’t have the right to regulate marriage.  They do.  The power to regulate marriage is a sovereign function reserved exclusively to the respective states. Salisbury v. List, 501 F.Supp. 105, 107 (D.Nev.1980); see O’Neill v. Dent, 364 F.Supp. 565 (E.D.N.Y.1973). By its very nature, the power to regulate the marriage relation includes the power to determine the requisites of a valid marriage contract and to control the qualifications of the contracting parties, the forms and procedures necessary to solemnize the marriage, the duties and obligations it creates, its effect upon property and other rights, and the grounds for marital dissolution. Id.

Consi: I’m not a fan of same-sex marriage and wouldn’t vote for it if it were on the ballot. 

Yet, I’ve promised to show up with bells on to attend a marriage ceremony should NY ever enact legislation allowing same-sex marriage.

How do you reconcile these two statements?

On the one hand you’re against same-sex marriage.
On the other hand, if someone else was to jump into the trench and work towards making same-sex marriage a reality, you would attend a same-sex marriage with bells on.

What has allowed you to set limits on the care and happiness of your friend (and I’m not even hinting you want to kiss a bloke with open mouth)?
How can you look your friend in the eye and say I loves ya but I don’t want to see you happy … my friend.

You have mentioned slippery slope scenarios but surely this one’s a red herring.
I’m sure the slippery slope argument preceded every step your country’s made to this here and now … let’s split from England; let’s free the slaves; let’s give blacks the same rights as whites; let’s let any man of any racial heritage marry any woman of any racial heritage; let’s let women vote ... hey, you know your country’s history better than I.

Are you frightened of what other people may say about you if you supported same-sex marriage?
Whose wrath do you fear?
Your parents.
Your boss?
Does the company you work for frown upon gays?

If none of the above applies, would I be correct in thinking there’s a religious element in your decision making?
Then again, you may simply be a cunt of a friend. 

Please tell us, Consi – what’s at the crux of your decision not to support same-sex marriage for your friend if you had a chance to do so at the ballot box? 

Marriage isn’t about religion anymore. I mean back in the day the only reason two people got married and had kids was because it was their ‘gods plan’. People get married out of convenience we see it all the time and say nothing. To stay in the country and become a citizen, to offer health benefits for the other and his/her children, or for the tax break. (Have you ever seen the suits from Conglomo organizing to ban convenience marriages that pay health benefits? Nope!-sounds kind of silly huh?) All I want as a mother, is for my children to be happy no matter what. If 15-20 years from now one of them tells me that they want to marry of the same sex, I would support it. What right do I have to take away someone else’s happiness? I wouldn’t want someone doing that to one of my kids. It’s nobody’s business who my kids choose to spend the rest of their lives with no matter what the reason.

I just ran across this article and haven’t had time to read all the replies but I can unequivocally state that I am strictly against gay marriage. I like women WAY TOO MUCH and if I had to be in a gay marriage I would rather remain celibate. That’s my opinion and I’m stickin with it!Your knows what he wants scribe;
Allan W Janssen

I can see where Consi’s coming from in regards to the whole “will of the people” thing, but I’m still not clear what his own personal opposition to gay marriage happens to be. That said, I’m not all that worried about it either so if he doesn’t wish to share those reasons then I’ll just accept that he has what he, at least, feels are adequate reasons.

Personally, I consider marriage a right that is denied some couples because of their sexual preference. The point of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that there are some things the “will of the people” would not be able to overrule. To keep government and the tyranny of the majority from walking all over the rights of those in the minority. Thusly I have no problems with the issue being decided by the courts as that’s part of what the courts do. I’d much prefer a legislative solution to the issue, but sometimes the legislative branch (and the general public) has to be told they can’t deny people their basic rights.

That’s just my take on the issue.

Moses the Scribe: I like women WAY TOO MUCH and if I had to be in a gay marriage I would rather remain celibate.

Was this thread ever about being forced into a gay marriage? Well hell now, even I’m against that! Where do I freakin’ vote?