You DO NOT vote on CIVIL RIGHTS, Jim. Your middle name wouldn't be Crow, would it?
8/12/2010 6:52:49 AM
Your laws should be secular according to your own constitution, so complaining about it makes you anti-American, now doesn't it, buddy.
Besides, just look at countries that allow gay marriage and see just how bad they are doing (hint: they are doing just fine and the only thing you'll notice is some very happy gays with wedding rings on).
8/12/2010 6:53:32 AM
You mean a life sentence without hope of
parole divorce? Arranged marriages? Dower rights? Defloration ceremonies at the Reception?
You are a disgrace. You should change your last name to "Dement".
8/12/2010 6:59:58 AM
"South Carolina Republican Sen. James Demint called the decision [overturning California's Prop. 8] "another attempt to impose a secular immorality on the American people who keep voting to preserve traditional marriage."
And for the rest of normal, decent, law-abiding, tolerant society on Planet Reality, that's a bad thing... how?
With emphasis on law-abiding.
"Traditional marriage has been the foundation of civil society for centuries"
We in the UK have had Civil Partnerships for years now. It's affected the foundation of our civil society precisely this much:
"and we cannot simply toss it aside to fit the political whims of liberal activists with gavels,"
Those 'liberal activists with gavels' are the bedrock of the foundations of civil society: The rule of law. Besides, by saying what you are, you're disobeying your very own Scripture, the literal 'Word of God'.
Do I have to remind you of Romans 13:1-7?
And last time I heard, it's your very own government who appoints Supreme Court Justices.
Unless you're prepared to completely agree with President Obama's policies and thus the decisions of said SCOTUS, then you've just punched your own one-way ticket to Hell.
8/12/2010 7:03:42 AM
we cannot simply toss it aside to fit the political whims of liberal activists with gavels
No, but we can toss it aside with a 50% divorce rate, shows like "The Bachelor" where a guy picks a woman to marry after getting to know her for a couple weeks and then divorcing after a quickie marriage, and people happily living together as a couple raising children without feeling the need to sign a piece of paper.
8/12/2010 7:10:22 AM
How does gay marriage "toss aside" traditional marriage? I'm pretty sure my wife and I will still be married if gay marriage is legalized.
8/12/2010 7:10:45 AM
You beat me to it. Nowhere do I see anybody calling for "traditional" marriages to fall away. Merely that they won't be the only type of marriage permitted.
It's called progress - and I say that as a 100% hetero, married man.
8/12/2010 7:20:28 AM
Two centuries ago, you would have said slavery has existed for centuries in all human societies, so why should we toss it out now?
8/12/2010 7:23:24 AM
"WAAAAAH! My political party isn't omnipotent!"
8/12/2010 8:02:10 AM
That's what they said about interracial marriage too.
8/12/2010 8:02:57 AM
For centuries "traditional marriage" was a means to tie two families/countries together, for property reasons, or to gain dowry money. Often, the couple had no say in the matter and one could be 53 while the other was 12.
How is wanting to tie yourself to another person for life an immorality? Isn't living together without marrying more immoral to you people?
I feel just as married after we got gender-neutral marriage laws, as I was before.
8/12/2010 8:25:37 AM
I think you have mistaken. If i wanted to wreck the foundation of civil society, i would attack the rights of man, not some silly little civil contract. Now, are you one of those people who would overturn 14th amendment because brown people?
8/12/2010 8:40:36 AM
Wow, you've got some ideological problems when you refer to Reagan nominees that couldn't get appointed because they were way too conservative as "liberal activists."
Who do you want on that bench? Judge Death?
"The crime is life! The sentence is death!"
8/12/2010 9:08:17 AM
'all men are created equal' ring a bell, dip shit? Why is this man a senator?
Also, you know in 3 months he'll be featured in a headline that goes something like this:
"U.S. Sen. James Demint arrested soliciting male prostitute" or for some intern he was having an affair with.
8/12/2010 9:08:47 AM
It's true: the American people do keep voting to maintain a definition of marriage that consists of one man and one woman. That tells you a lot about how easily misled the American people really are, and makes a strong argument that voters really should pay close attention to the actual nature of what they're voting for and not a 60-second TV or radio commercial in favor of or in opposed to whatever it is the ad attempts to do.
This is true for ballot initiatives and elected representatives.
8/12/2010 9:10:59 AM
"another attempt to impose a secular immorality on the American people who keep voting to preserve traditional marriage."
Are you saying that an entire class of people can be subjected to unequal status by a popular vote, Senator? Are you saying that our civil rights are not protected by law?
If so, please cite the relevant part of the Constitution to support your claim.
"Traditional marriage has been the foundation of civil society for centuries...
LAWS are the foundation of civil society, Senator. The founding fathers knew that. Why don't you?
...and we cannot simply toss it aside to fit the political whims of liberal activists with gavels,"
This judge was appointed by Reagan, Senator, and not without a struggle--some opposed him on the grounds that they thought he was too conservative.
Yes, this judge is apparently openly homosexual. That does not make him an activist, nor does it negate his ruling. The fact that you think that it should says volumes about your understanding of civil rights--and about your character.
Prop 8 was thrown out because it relegated one class of citizens to unequal status--without due process of law--based on nothing but the prejudices and bigotry of another group of citizens. Those aren't "whims", Senator.
8/12/2010 9:27:55 AM
Traditional marriage was whatever the fuck people wanted it to be; a man and a woman, a man and several women, a man, several women, and a few concubines, etc. It was simply a social contract between people that had no tax bonuses and was used to ensure inheritance.
8/12/2010 9:44:58 AM
How is it we're tossing "traditional marriage" aside? I'm a straight man, I've been married to a straight woman in the "traditional" way for the last 3 years. I live in Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal. Hundreds of gay marriages have happened here since the start of my marriage and for some strange unfathomable reason, none of those marriages have had any impact whatsoever on mine.
Fundies want to have "freedom" of choice. They want to make their choices... and yours too.
8/12/2010 9:56:47 AM
Wow, and the US Constitution is just a piece of paper. Amirite, Jim?
8/12/2010 10:00:46 AM
Traditional marriage has been the foundation of civil society for centuries and we cannot simply toss it aside to fit the political whims of liberal activists with gavels
You mean like the liberal activists who revolted against the British crown and drafted a new Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Those liberal activists?
8/12/2010 10:41:10 AM
Allegory for Jesus
"Fuck what the law says, what 51% of voters want is what really counts! Commence 'free booze and hookers day!' And no taxes forever! See you guys next month when we're a new country!"
8/12/2010 11:21:01 AM
"Traditional" Marriage, before it was hijacked by the church, was a secular institution between a man and however many concubines, or an arranged marriage by the parents
8/12/2010 11:59:05 AM
> Traditional marriage has been the foundation of civil society for centuries
I'm still waiting for proof for this often repeated claim. Common sense would suggest that people can be perfectly functional, productive members of the society without being married.
The last guy who tried to give us an explanation (titled "the Invisible Hand of Marriage") was Andy Schlafly, and that guy is a bit ding-dong. Any better tries?
8/12/2010 12:43:07 PM
"Traditional marriage has been the foundation of civil society for centuries and we cannot simply toss it aside to fit the political whims of liberal activists with gavels," Demint said.
All this started when judicial activists in 1967 redefined marriage to include a nigger marrying a white woman. It's been all downhill since then.
8/12/2010 12:46:01 PM
Nobody is calling for the abolition of traditional marriage. Gay marriages will not affect straight marriages at all, save perhaps creating longer lines at bakeries and florist shops.
8/12/2010 1:28:34 PM