For BD Bopper

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Sorry, man, but I can't just let this go.

Huckabee asks everyone to pray against gay marriage. (http://www.queerty.com/mike-huckabee-invites-you-to-fast-pray-for-sacred-prop-8-20100825/)

I know this guy is your hero. I don't understand how you can make that jive with us.

There aren't just gay people here. There are gay people here in seriously long term relationships. People that are being actively discriminated against.

You work very hard to promote equality for people with disabilities. At one point, religion held your people back, too. People with disabilities were seen as cursed, or punished by God, and shunned from general society.

I don't understand how you can mesh all this together.

[Cynthia]

CP, you are wonderful!

[BDBopper]

CP & Everyone else.

I am sure there are many folks who might take their being called out and run away never to be seen or heard from again. I want y'all to know I have received my being called out and that I will respond tomorrow.

What I will say right now is the fact that i have not been open on my opinion on this matter and I apologize for not being open...I owe that to each of y'all as friends. My opinion may not be what you expect it to be though.

More tomorrow. In the meantime, CP thanks for having the courage to call me out, not knowing how I would take it. It's not a feeling of comfort...in fact I feel bad for not being open with y'all on this.

[BDBopper]

Okay I have returned at a time that isn't almost 3 AM in my neck of the woods. This is a very complex issue we are dealing with and my response isn't going to be brief. Let me start on my opinion (both personal and otherwise...because there is a difference):

I PERSONALLY believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. HOWEVER I am of the opinion that marriage should not be regulated by the Government. Marriage is a religious institution between two partners and God. Big Brother need not apply. Unfortunately Big Brother profits from marriage with taxes and fees. Most of this is because of our tax structure. I'll explain that later. I can't tell y'all how to live your lives and Big Brother shouldn't either. Especially when Marraige doesn't violate any of the following:

LIFE: Is anyone being denied their right to live - Is anyone being murdered?

LIBERTY: Is anyone's freedom being taken away

PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS/PROPERTY: : Is something physically being stolen or the ability for someone to have property being violated?

When you ask these questions of Gay Marriage existing the answers are clearly no.

I have two issues.with the movement. which makes some people rather uncomfortable.

1. Our opinions will obviously differ on this but I see a lot of the environmental movement being more "Anti-Capitalism" then "let's leave the campground cleaner than we found it" In that same being I fear (and so do many others) see the Marriage issue being more about an assault on the church. What I mean is that a lot of these laws &amendments being written include the refusal of a church to marry two men or two women as a hate crime with severe penalties.

2. Courts/Constitution: The process that has just occurred in your state I don't have much problem with. The legislative branch acted, the people voted, and the judicial branch came in to check. So a Constitutional Amendment was written to definie Marriage, the people voted, and the judicial branch did its thing again. I'm a bit uncomfortable with a Federal court throwing out a passed amendment to a state's Constitution (has that ever happened before?) otherwise no foul. What I do have a problem with is what happened in Iowa. Everything happened in reverse. The Supreme Court of Iowa decided one day last year to declare gay marriage to be legal and play activists (which is a violation of the State Constitution because they decided to write their own law from the bench.

A candidate for Governor of Iowa (whom I campaigned heavily for because of his advocacy for those with disabilities) wanted to write an executive order to put a stay on Gay Marriage until the people could vote on the issue. While the candidate, who lost is anti-Gay Marriage, the effort had nothing to do with Marriage at all. Because the executive or legislative branches in Iowa did nothing to stand up for the Separation of Powers that exists in Iowa's Constitution the judicial branch has now been allowed to run roughshod over the other branches and the people. It wouldn't be anywhere near a problem if things had progressed in Iowa like in the California version of this. (That candidate is now fighting to get the people to vote no on retention of three of these justices to send a message to Judicial Branch)

Yes it is true that in every state that has voted on the issue, traditional marriage has won every time. What is lost on most people though is that America is a Republic, not a Democracy (Majority or Mob Rule). There are checks and balances that make up our system of Government.

Now on to taxes and to Huckabee. Yes both are related because of an ironic twist. For all the rhetoric...including what was linked to above, one of the key aspects of his platform, The FairTax (http://fairtax.org) would take away a major hurdle to getting the Government out of marriage regulation? Because the FairTax would replace the current tax on income (what we earn) to a tax on what is consumed at the point of sale, there seems to be no real good reason for Big Brother to regulate marriage anymore because the information of whether you are married or not is not needed for tax collecting purposes anymore,

(To be continued...my fingers are tired of typing at the moment).

[innerSpaceman]

PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS:

When you ask these questions of Gay Marriage existing the answers are clearly no.

Are you frelling serious? What part of denying someone the right to marry the person they love is NOT denying that person their right to happiness?





I note that you actually wrote: PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS/PROPERTY, and then went on to comment on property only. Well, why don't you check the Declaration of Independence, which refers to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and says nothing there about Property? Why did YOU add "property?"

I would try to keep this conversation civil, as it's potentially interesting and illuminating - but starting off with a false statement about the rights so famously put forth in America's founding document is NOT the way to get off on the right foot of a civil discussion.

:eek:

[innerSpaceman]

Forgive me if comment piece-by-piece as I go along. I'm finding your screed a little hard to stomach in its entirety.



You, Sir, are nothing short of DEAD WRONG about there being laws that impose a penalty for any clergy or anyone at all for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony where such marriages are legal. Wrong as wrong as wrong can be. Find me such a law. I dare you. You cannot and will not. If anything, laws regarding marriage equality in some states have been written to expressly exempt clergy from any such penalties - even in cases where it's already in the law (what's known as given them the sleeves off your vest).

I don't know who you're listening to, BDBopper, but so far you are scoring a total zero on fact-checking.




Ok, that was your preamble and Item No. 1. I can hardly wait to continue. :rolleyes:

[innerSpaceman]

Ok, why do you think the Iowa Supreme Court acted improperly simply because they were not overturning a ballot vote, as happened to have happened in California? Are you implying they just woke up in the morning and started legislating ... or did someone sue the state? In which case, when they ruled on that suit, it's called justice -- not legislating from the bench, not judicial "activism," but doing the vital job they are entrusted with by our constitution as a third and EQUAL branch of government.

And far from "running roughshod," the judicial branch has the FINAL WORD on law in this country. That's why I don't much care when people complain about the Iowa Supreme Court or Judge Walker here in California. You can complain all you like - but the law is still the law, and judges get to decide which laws stand and which fall. The.End.

[JWBear]

LIFE: Is anyone being denied their right to live - Is anyone being murdered?

The right to live as they choose? Yes. Murder is a silly straw man argument.


LIBERTY: Is anyone's freedom being taken away

Yes, our freedom to be treated equal. We are also being denied the thousands of benefits that straight couples are eligible to under marriage laws.


PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS/PROPERTY: : Is something physically being stolen or the ability for someone to have property being violated?

Of course it infringes on people’s pursuit of happiness in that it denies those who wish to marry the right to do so.

As for property, another yes. Married couples have automatic rights of survivorship and joint tenancy. How would you like to come home from your partner’s funeral to find his family has changed the locks and that everything you own is going to be sold to line their pockets. [/B][/QUOTE]


When you ask these questions of Gay Marriage existing the answers are clearly no.

On the contrary; they are a clear and resounding YES.


I have two issues.with the movement. which makes some people rather uncomfortable.

1. Our opinions will obviously differ on this but I see a lot of the environmental movement being more "Anti-Capitalism" then "let's leave the campground cleaner than we found it" In that same being I fear (and so do many others) see the Marriage issue being more about an assault on the church. What I mean is that a lot of these laws &amendments being written include the refusal of a church to marry two men or two women as a hate crime with severe penalties.

Whomever told you that is lying to you. As iSm pointed out, the exact opposite is true. You have also been misinformed about gay marriage being an attack on religion. That is patently ridiculous. There are many churches that strongly support gay marriage. You could, in fact, say that their religious rights are being suppressed by the ban on gay marriage.


2. Courts/Constitution: The process that has just occurred in your state I don't have much problem with. The legislative branch acted, the people voted, and the judicial branch came in to check. So a Constitutional Amendment was written to definie Marriage, the people voted, and the judicial branch did its thing again. I'm a bit uncomfortable with a Federal court throwing out a passed amendment to a state's Constitution (has that ever happened before?) otherwise no foul. What I do have a problem with is what happened in Iowa. Everything happened in reverse. The Supreme Court of Iowa decided one day last year to declare gay marriage to be legal and play activists (which is a violation of the State Constitution because they decided to write their own law from the bench.

It is the job of the federal judiciary to examine laws passed by the states, if that law is challenged in court, to ensure they do not violate the US Constitution. No state law or constitution can contradict the US Constitution, no matter how many people voted for it. The majority does not rule, the US Constitution does.

And yes, the federal courts have overturned provisions of various state constitutions for being in conflict with the US Constitution many, many times.


A candidate for Governor of Iowa (whom I campaigned heavily for because of his advocacy for those with disabilities) wanted to write an executive order to put a stay on Gay Marriage until the people could vote on the issue. While the candidate, who lost is anti-Gay Marriage, the effort had nothing to do with Marriage at all. Because the executive or legislative branches in Iowa did nothing to stand up for the Separation of Powers that exists in Iowa's Constitution the judicial branch has now been allowed to run roughshod over the other branches and the people. It wouldn't be anywhere near a problem if things had progressed in Iowa like in the California version of this. (That candidate is now fighting to get the people to vote no on retention of three of these justices to send a message to Judicial Branch)

This begs the question, “Why does that candidate hate the US system of government?” The judiciary, in this case, is doing exactly what it has been created to do. Why is that so bad? Why is that wrong? Because you don’t agree with it? Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.


Yes it is true that in every state that has voted on the issue, traditional marriage has won every time. What is lost on most people though is that America is a Republic, not a Democracy (Majority or Mob Rule). There are checks and balances that make up our system of Government.

Sorry again. The US is not run by mob rule. We have a Constitutional Democratic Republic. The majority does not have the right to withhold or remove the rights of the minority. To suggest or believe otherwise is completely un-American.


Now on to taxes and to Huckabee. Yes both are related because of an ironic twist. For all the rhetoric...including what was linked to above, one of the key aspects of his platform, The FairTax (http://fairtax.org) would take away a major hurdle to getting the Government out of marriage regulation? Because the FairTax would replace the current tax on income (what we earn) to a tax on what is consumed at the point of sale, there seems to be no real good reason for Big Brother to regulate marriage anymore because the information of whether you are married or not is not needed for tax collecting purposes anymore,

(To be continued...my fingers are tired of typing at the moment).

The, so called, “fair tax” is just another scheme to make the rich richer. It would further decimate the middle class and impoverish millions, while adding more wealth and power to the already wealthy and powerful. No thanks!

[BDBopper]

CLARIFICATION

When you ask the three questions about legalizing Gay Marriage...not prohibiting it. In other words legalizing Gay Marriage doesn't run into any of those three. So how can it be prohibited.

I'm trying to come on your side but doing a bad job of trying to explain it. I have failed. I wasn't even finished yet.

I've obviously run into a buzz saw. Ick.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

My husband is my life, my liberty, my happiness. That others do not have the liberty to legally share their lives and happiness with their partners, in the way that we are able... it is inconceivable to me.

[Alex]

Yeah, I read

Especially when Marraige doesn't violate any of the following:

LIFE: Is anyone being denied their right to live - Is anyone being murdered?

LIBERTY: Is anyone's freedom being taken away

PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS/PROPERTY: : Is something physically being stolen or the ability for someone to have property being violated?

When you ask these questions of Gay Marriage existing the answers are clearly no.
to be saying that gay marriage does not run afoul of any of those principals so there is no reason for the government to bar it regardless of what BDBopper personally thinks.

In other words, gay marriage does not deprive anybody of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness/property.

Then issues are raised with how the process has happened in some place and concerns (unfounded in my opinion) about how gay marriage might impinge on personal religious expression. But at least what was written so far it seems to me that BDBopper is disagreeing with Huckabee on legislatively barring gay marriages (though possibly agreeing with him that god should maybe make people stop wanting them).

[BDBopper]

Thank you Alex. You are right on the money except for the last sentence...I am definitely not going that far. There are far more important things to be praying for.

[Alex]

That said, left unaddressed at this point (though you have said you're not done) is how you reconcile that position with such strong support for Huckabee politically.

[BDBopper]

That said, left unaddressed at this point (though you have said you're not done) is how you reconcile that position with such strong support for Huckabee politically.



I guess I am better off answering questions


It's the only position on which we have disagreement. There are more important issues to me personally than the marriage debate. I'd rather not touch it (explains my reluctance to even bring up the subject here where it is far more important.) It doesn't affect me directly like most every other issue I can think of. I don't even have a position on marriage in my organization platform. Though I guess at some point maybe something on Civil Unions might enter because I can see a lot of benefit for folks with disabilities living together legally with mutual benefit.

To answer a question before it comes. Why no importance on the issue in the platform...there are many other organizations focusing on that issue alone.