Why do conservatives think gay marriage is any of their damn business?

[arissa]

How does it harm them if gay couples get married? Don't you generally have to show some grievance, a victim, to outlaw something? Where's the damn victim?

Why do self-proclaimed "small-government" conservatives think it is any of their business? Why are they sticking their noses in other people's lives? Why in the hell do so many people buy into this BS that this "must be stopped"?

[stopthegop]

1. you're looking at it backwards..

it's not a matter of outlawing an existing setup...it's creating a new one...different thing...
and it's probably seen as their business because if the state grants legal recognition to a same sex union it's a form of endorsement.

[arissa]

4. They're proposing a constitutional amendment

That is outlawing something, not creating something new.

Which brings me to another point... isn't the Constitution supposed to define and PROTECT rights, not limit them? I think it's disgusting to use the Constitution to limit rights.

[stopthegop]

6. no...it's preventing the creation of something new...

1) there is no (legal) same sex marriage in the US today
2) this proposed ammendment would say there could be no same sex marriage in the future...
3) stop a change, not change an existing situation...the change would be to allow same sex marriage

[arissa]

7. No, the question of legality is open to interpretation

As SF has proven, the question about whether or not it's legal is entirely ambiguous.

[stopthegop]

9. No...SF has proven the mayor will break the law

there's a clear CA law on the matter...

allowing same sex marriage is the change..not disallowing it

[arissa]

11. I must have missed that part of the Constitution then...

that forbids gay marriage. I think you're looking at it backwards. We must assume that everyone has a right to do everything to start out with, and then work our way backwards and define things which people do not have the right to do.

You seem to be working on the assumption that no one has the right to do anything, and working backwards from that, defining what things people DO have the right to do.

[stopthegop]

13. no....let me rephrase....

for millenia human marriage has been between male/female...

there is a current law in CA stating this is the only form of legal marriage...

there has been no ruling by a competent court on the CA law...

allowing same sex marriage does two things:
1) allows same sex couples to be married
2) forces state to recognize the union ..this is the change...

The US constitution does not address marriage (directly)..so states are free to make the laws they choose...it's possible a male/female only law will be challenged on equal protection grounds...then the law might be found unconstitutional...

[arissa]

15. Bingo...

"The US constitution does not address marriage (directly)"

Therefore, the attempt to add a Constitutional amendment is an attempt to outlaw something which is not illegal under federal law. And it's also an attempt to use the Constitution to limit people's rights rather than protect them, which is counter to everything the Constitution is SUPPOSED to stand for.

[stopthegop]

23. OK...I see what you mean..

in that sense you're correct...but there is currently the (Clinton-signed) DOMA...allowing states to ignore the decisions of other states on this matter..and many states have laws limiting marriage to male/female....

as to using the constitution to limit people's rights:
1) how do we prove same sex couples have a 'right' to marry?
2) the consitution already limits some rights by setting requirements for office that treat citizens differently...

have a good afternoon

[arissa]

24. The burden isn't on us to prove they have the right

Once again, we have to apply rights as the default. The burden is on those who want to outlaw it to prove a grievance, to show a victim. Which they can't do.

If we start thinking of rights as something only given when you can "prove" them, you walk onto very thin ice. Like I said earlier, we have to assume everyone has the right to do anything, and then work from that, defining things which people don't have the right to do based on those things infringing on the rights of others.

For example, we have to assume that I have the right to steal money from you. Then, because my doing so would infringe on your rights, we determine that I do NOT have the right. That is the process, not vice versa.

We must assume that everyone has the right to marry anyone they wish, until someone proves that this would infringe on someone else's rights (which will never happen).

[adamblast]

19. For millenia marriage has been between male/female? Phooey!

Gay sex, and gay couples, are as old as humanity itself.

The kind of marriage you're talking about--the civic legal contract--is *itself* a recent phenomenon.

[stopthegop]

30. couples and sex..sure

but not legal marriage...inheritance and all...and legal marriage has been around since early Roman times...though the form has no doubt changed some

[foreigncorrespondent]

39. The I suggest you...

...brush up on gay history.

I won't go into details here, because I did this only a few weeks back, and the person I posted the information for really didn't appreciate it, because it showed he was actually wrong.

But nevertheless there have been legal same sex marriages in history. Ancient Egyptians even made homosexuals Gods!

[stepnw1f]

37. I love how people seem to know

how long marriage has existed. Especially between men and women. Correct me if I am wrong, but marriage itself did not even exist universaly in the eyes of state and church till modern day. You weren't even allowed to get married as a serf/plebian without your master's consent.

The unions between man and women in the past were established only to procreate, not for love. Love had become more visible when interracial marriage was sought. There the struggle for two socially unacceptable people to marry was illustrated. For two people to sacrifice all because of their love, made marriage more valid in the eyes of society.

Once that had taken affect, intergration of society took off. By protecting gay marriage we are in fact, we are accepting the homosexual community as part of our own. It's about F*n time we did., because it's gonna take everybody to work together as a human race, to get our asses out of the deep shit we are in.

[BR_Parkway]

18. I, along with 1,000's of other gays, married my partner

it was a religious service - and it was NOT illegal. It is not given any legal recognition. There is a HUGE difference. If it was ILLEGAL, then they could have arrested Mayor Newsom - but the State Attorney General and both Superior court judges who have looked into this have not even told them to stop, much less locked anyone up for "breaking" the law.

Family law of California (like many states) says they will no recognize or consider valid a marriage unless it is between a man and a woman.

So he's not breaking the law and this isn't the change. The change we are seeking is the same "official" recognition that they give some couples but not others. I'm so tired of people saying that they're breaking the law out there.

[stopthegop]

26. the breaking of the law is in issuing legal docs to a same sex

couple as to a different sex couple ...and past same sex marriages were not illegal..but they were not 'legal' either...they were legally neutral because there was no legal recognition by the state... the actions in SF change that...

[BR_Parkway]

32. No, the code doesn't say that at all - there is no law broken

There is a complete division of Family Administrative code (you can consider that to be the "how to") and violating criminal statutes (which have penalties attached, consider that the "thou shalt")

Consider how quickly Arnold and the rest of the ReThugs would have locked these people up to get them to stop, if there had been a legal mechanisim for doing so. Even the judges who have already started hearing arguments have not ordered it stopped, and if they did, the only law that could be broken would be a contempt of court order. IF an amendment to a constitution is passed at state or federal level, then it could be "against the law" depending on the wording - but currently, all of the DOMA's have only addressed that they won't recognize a marriage that isn't between 1 man and 1 woman.

307. This division, so far as it relates to the solemnizing of
marriage, is not applicable to members of a particular religious
society or denomination not having clergy for the purpose of
solemnizing marriage or entering the marriage relation, if all of the
following requirements are met:
(a) The parties to the marriage make, sign, and endorse on or
attach to the license a statement, in the form prescribed by the
State Department of Health Services, showing all of the following:
(1) The fact, time, and place of entering into the marriage.
(2) The signatures and places of residence of two witnesses to the
ceremony.
(3) The religious society or denomination of the parties to the
marriage, and that the marriage was entered into in accordance with
the rules and customs of that religious society or denomination. The
statement of the parties to the marriage that the marriage was
entered into in accordance with the rules and customs of the
religious society or denomination is conclusively presumed to be
true.
(b) The License and Certificate of Declaration of Marriage,
endorsed pursuant to subdivision (a), is returned to the county
recorder of the county in which the license was issued within 30 days
after the ceremony.

308. A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid
by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted
is valid in this state.

308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.This is the section added by Propostion 22.

[stopthegop]

33. so by your understanding there is legally recogized marriage

in CA?

I'd missed that...if there was, none of this foolishness would be going on...

have a good evening...

[BR_Parkway]

34. never said it was legally recognized

only that they did not break any laws in officiating those marriages and the parties were duly warned that the state and federal gov't may not recognize it.

[bowens43]

31. No, the proposed amendment

outlaws same sex marriage. Spin it however you like but that's exactly what it does. Not all states have laws prohibiting same sex marriage.

[Hammie]

36. Link?

Do you have a link to the proposed ammendment? I assumed it would take the form of an exception to the full faith and credit clause, but I guess I was wrong.

[rockymountaindem]

2. I think you answered your own question.

Because they're not what they claim to be. They're the biggest fans of "big government" out there, they just don't like to spend much money on it.

Hey, 300 posts!

[Stuckinthebush]

3. Simple

1. - Homosexuality is evil
2. - Evil must be stopped
3. - Gays and lesbians must be stopped from participating in our society becasue they are evil
4. - We can't lock 'em up or kill them, so we will make sure they can't have the same rights as good, god-fearing people.


Small government doesn't come into the picture when evil is involved.

Anti-gay bigots make me sick.

[Cary]

5. Because they believe that God told them that . . .

homosexuals are an abomination.

At least that's the best I can figure. They talk about how "unhealthy" it is when they want to think they're being objective. But their religious beliefs seem to rule the day on this.

It's hard to argue with God.

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. Establishment of separate legal status for some groups has a lot of

possible applications. While in the case of same-sex couples, it might not offer the potential economic benefit, the emotional hot-button nature of the question, together with the unpopularity of homosexuals as a group, make it an ideal foot-in-the-door strategy, which could then be expanded to provide literally millions of dollars in savings for business interests.

Just think - if I have 50 office employees, and 300 laborers, most of whom are of a particular ethnic group, having a separate legal status for that ethnic group could save me a bundle in benefits alone!

[IrateCitizen]

10. Because it invalidates their "strict father" worldview

The Republican view of the world can be easily transferred into a family view. Theirs is the "strict father" view -- a family in which everyone knows their "place" and an authoritarian father runs the house without exception. Compassion is shown through "tough love" rather than helping others out. Show of strength/force in order to maintain order is wholly accepted.

If a "family" is validated that does NOT conform to this kind of world outlook, it is a serious blow to their entire philosophy. Because it might just mean that values like compassion and forgiveness and sharing ARE positive values.

If you're interested, George Lakoff has written numerous pieces recently on this "strict father" phenomenon with regards to the Republican Party. Just do a search on his name and you'll come up with a few to be certain.

[togiak]

12. Many Reasons

1. They think that gays are an abomonation and destructive to society (though they can't ever seem to answer how).
2. They think that marriage is a holy institution that is make between a man and a woman.
3. They think that the US was founded on Christian values and that it must at all cost protect Christian values (don't bother trying to bring up separation of church and state with them).
4. They believe in majority rule (well, except when the majority would disagree with them)

Much of the argument is based on religion so really there is no way to have a discussion on this issue. These people are moral absolutists. What they believe is ABSOLUTE truth and there is no other possible opinion or conclusion or evidence that can sway them.

[Leilani]

14. Because they believe in limited gov't

except when it comes to telling everyone how to live his or her life.

[Drifter]

16. When I was a Homophobic Dip-Shit ...

I had this very strong feeling that Homosexuality somehow effected me. I was not exposed to many gay people (as far as I knew) until I took a job at a local Hotel (who employed lots of gay people).

It was not until I was able to interact (in both professional and social situations), that I realized that gay people (men and women) were just like me. We all have the same dreams, desires, happiness, problems, heartaches, etc.

I am willing to bet that people who are strongly against Homosexuality, probably do not know many people who are gay. This situation might not change because of the hatred that is spewed by these people.

So, it took a situation where I was effected by gay people for me to realize that gay people really don't effect me.

Cheers
Drifter

[arissa]

28. That's interesting...

"I had this very strong feeling that Homosexuality somehow effected me."

I wonder if this is the case, people have some weird delusion that it affects them somehow.

[Lindacooks]

17. Because they're a bunch of nosy, self-righteous

SOBs who think that it's their 'calling' to go around telling everybody how to live, by their narrow-minded rules.

That's it in a nutshell.

[Mountainman]

20. They feel they are losing the cultural war, it's a power play

The religious right wants a country based on their interpretation of the Bible. If gay marriage were to become widespread and their dire predictions don't come true (and the know they won't come true) than they lose control over the cultural war.

[lapislzi]

21. Making government just small enough to fit in your bedroom

...apologies to the DUer who coined that phrase.

It amazes me that they believe that big business can be trusted to do the right thing, but individual behavior needs to be monitored on a molecular level.

Is it me? C'mon, tell me. I can take it. Am I missing something here?

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Because almost every Republican argument is based on a lie...

Preservation of society is bullshit. The real reason is because the Christain fundamentalists want it. It's that simple.

[Gunit_Sangh]

25. my 2 cents

This is nothing more than a wedge issue to fire up their conservative base. After all ... what can they run on? Fiscal responsibility? Environment? Honesty?

If all those purists were to REALLY revert back to the social standards of biblical times they would ...

1) Go back to arranged marriages and marry their daughters off at the age of 13-14

2) Revoke all women's rights and make them go back to the property they were back in biblical times ... of course my wife won't let THAT happen in my home :o)

[arissa]

27. I agree that's why the GOP is pushing it, but...

it doesn't explain why so many people buy into it. It's just so stupid.

[havocmom]

29. They can't stand the thought that they are wrong about anything

and since they insist homosexuals are evil, pormiscuous heathens, they can't allow stable, loving same sex couples to prove them wrong.

Or, they just can't tolerate the thought that anybody is having sex, besides them and their mistresses, of course :evilgrin:

[Maat]

35. I agree with arissa.

I am profoundly shocked that the United States Constitution could be amended to deny a class a fundamental right. What irks me as an ex-social-worker is how Repukes categorize themselves as 'pro-family.' That's at the same time they are killing every program that can help a family out there. We had a hard enough time finding adoptive parents -- and they want to make it even harder. They are not 'pro-family.' They want to force an evangelical lifestyle on everyone. They can live and let live.

[stepnw1f]

38. Actually...

the Repugnacious motive is money. What happens when gays have the right to marry? Benifits! All the rest march up behind the effort for their own personal motives....fear and ignorance mainly.

BTW - just think what we all will benefit from gay marriage. A more positive and integrated society. Is that so bad?

[lolly]

40. Must separate sex from pleasure

Didn't somebody once say something to the effect that

what drives the serious Puritan is the fear that somebody, somewhere may be having some fun.

(Actually, I hear Puritans weren't as uptight about sexual pleasure as is commonly assumed, so I guess we can substitute "wingnuts" for that)

Sex, in this worldview, is ONLY to be endured for procreational purposes. If it is fun it's a sin.

Since homosexual love doesn't produce babies, it must be sinful.

[justgamma]

41. because they

want government out of the boardroom and into your bedroom.