Drama Over Obama Inaugural Prayer

[Mokele]

A quick google will net a lot - here's the first one I found:

 

http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html

 

A lot of the research traces back to a now-deceased Yale History professor, John Boswell, who directly translated many of these formerly ignored documents.

 

Mokele

[iNow]

Well, for one... Look up the work of Professor John Boswell, recently deceased chairman of the Yale University history department.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boswell

 

 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html

Excerpts from the keynote address made by Prof. Boswell to the Fourth Biennial Dignity International Convention in 1979.

 

 

http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

 

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

 

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

 

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

 

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

 

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

 

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

A lot of the research traces back to a now-deceased Yale History professor, John Boswell, who directly translated many of these formerly ignored documents.

Looks like you got there before me. Here's one of those translated docs:

 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/sykeon-adelpho.html

 

 

 

 

 

Also:

 

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/homosexuality.html

John Boswell (a Yale Historian) also notes that historical gay ceremonies carried out by the church in previous centuries were in the same fashion as heterosexual ones.

 

 

“For nearly two centuries after Christianity had become the state religion, Christian emperors in Eastern cities not only tolerated but actually taxed gay prostitution. In 7th century Visigoth Spain, a series of six national church councils refused to support the ruler's legislation against homogenital acts. By the 9th century almost every area in Christian Europe had local law codes, including detailed sections on sexual offenses; none outside of Spain forbade homogenital acts. By the High Middle Ages, a gay subculture thrived, as in Greco-Roman times. A body of gay literature was standard discussion material at courses in the medieval universities where clerics were educated.

 

Opposition to homosexuality, as in Augustine and Chrysostom, rested on reasons unacceptable today: "natural-law" arguments based on beliefs about supposed sexual practices among hares, hyenas, and weasels; a philosophical Stoicism that was suspicious of any sexual enjoyment; a sexism that saw a degrading effeminacy in being the receptive partner in sex. All-out Christian opposition to homosexuality arose at a time when medieval society first began to oppress many minority groups: Jews, heretics, the poor, usurers. A campaign to stir up support for the Crusades by vilifying the Muslims with charges of homosexual rape also played a part in Christian Europe's change of attitude toward gay and lesbian sex.”

 

"Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" by John Boswell (1980)

 

The author lists the original texts and English translations of a number of religious ceremonies: Office of Same-sex Union, (and similar names), 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th & 16th century translations, Greece Office of Same-sex Union, 11th century Christian church in Greece. The Order for Uniting Two Men, 11-12 century, Old Church Slavonic Office of Same-Gender Union, 12th century Italio-Greek. An Order for the Uniting of Two Men [or Two Women], 14th century Serbian Slavonic Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men, prior to 18th century, Serbian Slavonic.

 

Christianity has always contained a mix of pro- and anti- homosexual elements. Periods of oppression of homosexuals and celebration of love, homosexual or not, have came and went. Finally, same-sex marriage is not only found in early Christianity - it has existed quite freely in other cultures and civilizations. For example a four thousand year old Tomb belonging to gay married couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep exists in Saqqara, Egypt.

Edited December 20, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[ParanoiA]

By your logic' date=' people should have been 'persuaded' to recognize inter-racial marriage. But instead, we rightly realized that the Constitution exists in part to prevent the majority from denying rights to the minority, and the Supreme Court overturned it.

 

People are still free to express their displeasure, but their freedom does NOT extend into denying others their rights.[/quote']

 

No, you're misunderstanding my point. You can't force free society to do squat, we don't have to recognize any marriage any more than we have to recognize your membership to the Crips. Likewise though, we are free to recognize your marriage regardless of whether or not the state does. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

 

The other "others" would then be the state. You said you weren't trying to force anything onto others, and I'm pointing out that you are forcing something onto others, and rightfully so, at least in terms of homosexual unions. It was the "state" that was taken to task for not recognizing interracial marriage.

 

And you have just completely missed the point.

 

The POINT is that the "definition of marriage" has changed so much and so often that it's a completely bogus argument.

 

Oh' date=' and as for your "man+woman" crap - wrong. Plenty of societies recognized gay unions, and Christianity itself performed gay marriages until the 10th century.[/quote']

 

Alright, well rather than argue that point, I'll concede and move on to the only relevant portion of that: What was the definition of the word "marriage", to the legislative body, when it was legislated? For purposes of law and the intransigent responsibility of the constitution, the definition of ALL the words are dictated by the moment they were written.

 

And that's the job of the supreme court, to interpret what the intent of the law was, part of which is the definition of terminology in the context of the time. If marriage meant "man and woman", then so be it. If it meant "woman and house cat", then only women and house cats could be recognized by the state as "married".

 

Allow me to make it simple for you: What damage would it do to your goals to allow gay marriage? Regardless of your philosophic position, allowing it would temporarily solve the situation until you can gain enough political clout to implement your ideas.

 

Depends on how it's done. If the definition of "marriage" is changed retroactively - thus expanding laws and rights and privileges by redefining old language with modern changes, then it endangers the entire constitution, all of the laws and rights that protect you and I are then susceptible to redefinition by other groups (like the KKK, neo-nazi types, GWB's, american taliban...etc) without passing a single law. See my example on theoretically redefining nuclear weapons as "guns", therefore enabling every american to enjoy nuclear weapon ownership protected by the second amendment.

 

And that's entirely in line with how the three branches have been designed.

 

Seriously' date=' I have *never* heard of a law-based objection, and I've been following this issue intensely for many years. Every time, it's a bunch of religious bigots talking about how evil gays will pollute marriage.

 

The plain and obvious fact is that the opposition to gay marriage is based on homophobia, backed by religion. Any other reason accounts for such a small percentage of the opposition as to be inconsequential.[/quote']

 

You can't say you never heard a law-based objection when our entire exchange has been just that. I have no homophobia at all, nor any phobia to those who engage in incest, or multiple partners. I think all of them should be able to enjoy state recognized unions.

 

I don't think laws should change, expand, nor collapse by applying modern definitions to words written in the past. You create new laws. That's the cost of using a constitution to properly restrain the tyrannical majority of democracy.

 

You are strawmanning.

 

Absolutely false. You have repeatedly justified why you think militant discourse is called for here. So I gave you a good reason why it's not. All of our political differences come down to real life suffering and pain. That's not a strawman, you just don't agree.

Edited December 20, 2008 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

That's an interesting bit of history, thanks! In terms of it being a "weapon" in this argument (as iNow put it), I think if it's intended as an historical precedent then it's a bit iffy, since there were numerous pre-Christian cultures (such as the Romans) who didn't allow it (and perhaps others that did -- Greek, perhaps?). So it strikes me as not so much a historical precedent, but rather a point about Christian hypocrisy. More useful, perhaps, in debates about the role of religion in modern times.

 

We're getting a bit far afield from the subject of the thread. Let's see if we move back towards the subject of the inaugural address. Speaking of hypocrisy, here's an interesting article from the LA Times today about Hollywood stars upset over the selection of Rick Warren. They're so cute when they're outraged, aren't they?

 

Whether out of outrage or guilt, actors, filmmakers and other industry types have been on the front lines of protests and calls to overturn the proposition.

 

While none of the senior activists are advocating a boycott of the inaugural, as some grass-roots voices on the Internet are, they are calling on Obama to make some concrete gestures showing he understands their concerns.

 

Rofl. Because, you know, gestures are so much more important than actions. I'm giving them one right now. It's a shame they can't see it.

 

 

At the film's packed, star-studded Los Angeles premiere a few years ago, which Warren attended, the pastor (sitting a few seats away from Sharon Stone) enthusiastically voiced support for reducing carbon emissions and expressed outrage over official neglect of the global warming issue. Afterward, he hugged and congratulated one of ["An Inconvenient Truth's"] producers, Lawrence Bender, and vowed to do whatever he could to get the word out.

 

And Warren delivered. Many credit his efforts with making global warming and environmental stewardship issues in young evangelical congregations across the country. Similarly, his own church's work to ameliorate the suffering of HIV-positive Africans has drawn the support of many film celebrities.

 

That's the problem with the Big Tent. Everyone has their little agenda, and sometimes they don't match up.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-et-cause20-2008dec20,0,5410722.story

[Mokele]

No, you're misunderstanding my point. You can't force free society to do squat, we don't have to recognize any marriage any more than we have to recognize your membership to the Crips. Likewise though, we are free to recognize your marriage regardless of whether or not the state does. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

 

Actually, you CAN force a free society to do stuff. It's in the "society" part - the whole basis of society is that we *all* agree to rules in order to allow us to live together and reap the benefits of cooperation. In *this* society, we agreed to the rules of the constitution, which includes allows the courts to override the majority in order to protect the essential rights.

 

You want to let nobody force you to do anything, go live in a cave. If you're in the US, you get the benefits only if you agree to the rules (Constitution) and pay the club fees (taxes). Welcome to civilization.

 

What was the definition of the word "marriage", to the legislative body, when it was legislated? For purposes of law and the intransigent responsibility of the constitution, the definition of ALL the words are dictated by the moment they were written.

 

So, you support beating your wife? Because that's what marriage meant at the time it was written. You support banning interracial marriage? Because that's what marriage meant at the time it was written. You support women having no rights beyond as property of their husband? Because that's what marriage meant at the time it was written.

 

Terms, and societies, evolve. We can and do change terms. Remember when "voter" meant "white, rich male over 21"?

 

And that's the job of the supreme court, to interpret what the intent of the law was, part of which is the definition of terminology in the context of the time. If marriage meant "man and woman", then so be it. If it meant "woman and house cat", then only women and house cats could be recognized by the state as "married".

 

So, you accept the CA supreme court's decision to legalize gay marriage, then? Because they did their job - they weighed everything, and found that "tradition" wasn't a sufficient reason to deny people rights.

 

And you do realize that "argument from tradition" is a logical fallacy, right?

 

If the definition of "marriage" is changed retroactively - thus expanding laws and rights and privileges by redefining old language with modern changes, then it endangers the entire constitution, all of the laws and rights that protect you and I are then susceptible to redefinition by other groups

 

Bullshit. Slippery slope fallacy.

 

The change is based on sound legal judgment - the 14th ammendment, which guarantees equality under the law. The idea that somehow the Nazi's are going to sneak in and change terms around is just plain stupid.

 

See my example on theoretically redefining nuclear weapons as "guns", therefore enabling every american to enjoy nuclear weapon ownership protected by the second amendment.

 

Reductio ad absurbium. 3 fallacies in a single post, that's got to be a record.

 

You can't say you never heard a law-based objection when our entire exchange has been just that.

 

A fringe viewpoint does not constitute a legitimate legal-based objection. How many libertarian US Senators or Representatives are there again? Oh, that's right, zero.

 

See what I said in the segement you quoted: "Any other reason accounts for such a small percentage of the opposition as to be inconsequential. "

 

Your views are a tiny fringe group, not the vast bulk of those who oppose gay marriage.

 

I have no homophobia at all, nor any phobia to those who engage in incest, or multiple partners. I think all of them should be able to enjoy state recognized unions.

 

You could have fooled me, given how you're scraping the bottom of the logical barrel in order to justify your opposition to gay marriage.

 

I don't think laws should change, expand, nor collapse by applying modern definitions to words written in the past.

 

Really? So I should tell my wife she's now basically my slave and property, and beat the hell out of her if she dares speak back?

 

You have repeatedly justified why you think militant discourse is called for here. So I gave you a good reason why it's not. All of our political differences come down to real life suffering and pain. That's not a strawman, you just don't agree.

 

No, I have REPEATEDLY said that not all political disagreements are equal, and some are clearly more important than others, something you conveniently ignore in order to falsely represent my views as some radical demagogue.

 

You're mis-representing my views in order to have something to more easily attack. That's called a Strawman.

 

Mokele

[Dak]

No, you're misunderstanding my point. You can't force free society to do squat

 

No, but a free society can remove certain freedoms from minority members, unless you remove their freedom to do so (similar, in principle, to 'you can't have both freedom from indiscriminate rape and freedom to rape indiscriminately); unavoidably, some people, somewhere, somehow have to lose rights.

 

'free society' is unatainable.

 

This is how it would ideally work imo:

 

1/ we all agree to have a democracy

 

2/ BUT, we all recognise that we're minorities in certain ways. if we allow ourselves to, we'll just all suffer from bigotry. alot.

 

3/ therefore, we agree to certain rules (of our own democratic choosing) that we have to follow wrt dealing with minorities, what we can't do to them, what reasons we'll need, etc. even against the majoritys will (this is still democratic, as we democratically choose to do this) this is done for our own selfish reasons, to protect us from the majority whilst we're the minority.

 

4/ then we follow these rules

 

5/ do we enforce these rules? well, yeah... elsewize there was no point. the whole point is that it's in our best interests to not allow bigotry like this, even when the majority wants it, because we're all minorities in some ways... so, we don't allow it, right?

 

6/ if we change our mind, we can cancel that rule. if we agree to keep our noses out of each others marriage, and, then, whoops, we don't really want to let poofs marry, then we'll either ALL have to give up the protection of our marriages to allow us to persecute poofs (risking: no divorce, harsh penalties for adultary, loosing spousal rights, nothing other than standard M+F+2.4 family, etc etc, and, when you've excluding that many people, maybe the 'standard' family unit isn't so standard after all), or, if we ALL wouldn't tolerate the loss of that right, then none of us loose it. elsewize, it's not really doing its job of protecting us all whilst we're the minority.

 

without step 5, look what happens: step 4 doesn't happen (this whole 'overall desirable not to be bigoted; in each particular case, desireable to be bigoted' is a tradgedy of the commons, so obviously we mostly won't want to follow the rules in each individual case) thus rendering step 3 pretty pointless, and turning step 1 into 'we all agree to a mobocracy'.

 

in mobocracies, we're all oblidged to be 'normal' and average (YUUUUUUUUUK!!!). hardly your ideal free society, don't you agree?

[Pangloss]

I'm actually a lot more concerned about what the activated right will do, re-incensed by "activist judges", than I am about a few thousand people who can't get "married", but are in no other way harmed. Gays aren't slaves, they're missing a specific freedom. Welcome to life -- aren't we all missing some specific freedom or other? Way it goes.

 

I think banning gay marriage is wrong, but I also think that in talking about enforcement solutions that are against the will of the majority we are hyperinflating the importance of this problem. We can afford to solve this one gradually over time, and there's a tremendous benefit to doing so. So that's what we should do, in my opinion.

[iNow]

That's an interesting bit of history, thanks! In terms of it being a "weapon" in this argument (as iNow put it), I think if it's intended as an historical precedent then it's a bit iffy, since there were numerous pre-Christian cultures (such as the Romans) who didn't allow it (and perhaps others that did -- Greek, perhaps?). So it strikes me as not so much a historical precedent, but rather a point about Christian hypocrisy.

Well, yes. It does exemplify the hypocrisy of the Christian view on this, but more... It defeats the argument that "marriage has been the same for 5,000 years," which is the context in which it was first shared in this discussion.

 

I think it may have been you who said this, or maybe ParanoiA, but the fact is that no, marriage has changed dramatically through the years, and the Christian church itself had gay marriages often just a few short centuries ago.

 

The point being, we can't lie to everyone about reality just to maintain some alignment with a bigoted and misguided worldview, nor should we accept faulty arguments in support of a weak position.

 

 

 

 

 

Gays aren't slaves, they're missing a specific freedom. Welcome to life -- aren't we all missing some specific freedom or other? Way it goes.

 

I think banning gay marriage is wrong, but I also think that in talking about enforcement solutions that are against the will of the majority we are hyperinflating the importance of this problem. We can afford to solve this one gradually over time, and there's a tremendous benefit to doing so. So that's what we should do, in my opinion.

 

That's crazy. "It doesn't impact ME much, so let's just let it work itself out." Sorry, mate. That's crazy.

 

The majority is shifting, and the problem is hugely important to those it impacts. The fact that it doesn't impact you very much directly really matters not.

 

What you said above is just crazy, and baffling really.

[waitforufo]

Prop. 8 passed by a 2% margin. I believe it is possible to overturn Prop 8 in the next general election two years from now. The real societal victory would be to overturn Prop. 8 at the ballot box. I hope this opportunity is not missed due to a court decision.

[Mokele]

Prop. 8 passed by a 2% margin. I believe it is possible to overturn Prop 8 in the next general election two years from now. The real societal victory would be to overturn Prop. 8 at the ballot box. I hope this opportunity is not missed due to a court decision.

 

Speaking of which, and rather off topic, doesn't it strike anyone else as really Weird that a state constitution can be amended by a simple majority popular vote? I mean, what's the difference between a constitutional amendment and a law passed by ballot, then? And why even give courts judicial review and the ability to strike down laws, given that any law that passed by anything like a sizable majority of the legislature would surely be re-instated as a constitutional amendment if the court overturns it. It seem, well, dumb. I cannot for the life of me figure out why it was set up that way, rather than the way it works at the national level, requiring a 2/3rds vote.

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

Regarding the ongoing debate btw paranioA and mokele... I sort of see both sides here. On one hand, we need to have a society with an ordered set of rules and the means to enforce them or the society breaks down (wild west anarchy).

 

However, how do you structure society in a way that maximizes freedoms and prevent mob rule?

 

Preserving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is easy (nobody has the right to murder anymore) but somethings aren't so cut and dry. Gay marriage and abortion are two such things because people's moralities are so different.

 

Should the federal government view gay marriage as a civil right and interfere in state laws which prohibit it (like what happened with the Jim crow laws)?

 

There's really no good answer here... I, for one, think preventing mob rule is more important than having a large federal government order society but many other people don't agree with that, and I'm entirely sure if the constitution would forbid it.

 

Also (this is an issue I've been struggling with, intellectually) do you let the desire of government 'noninterference' prevent social mobility...

For example, years of institutionalized racism has lead to a segregated society. Can/Should a government be able to take active policies in trying to reverse this? My gut tells me "no" because I don't trust the government to do a good job (without violating some other groups rights) OTOH, society should have a moral obligation to correct wrongs (even at the expense of people who had nothing to do with those wrongs??)

[Pangloss]

Well, yes. It does exemplify the hypocrisy of the Christian view on this, but more... It defeats the argument that "marriage has been the same for 5,000 years," which is the context in which it was first shared in this discussion.

 

I think it may have been you who said this, or maybe ParanoiA, but the fact is that no, marriage has changed dramatically through the years, and the Christian church itself had gay marriages often just a few short centuries ago.

 

The point being, we can't lie to everyone about reality just to maintain some alignment with a bigoted and misguided worldview, nor should we accept faulty arguments in support of a weak position.

 

That was ParanoiA. I see your point. It's a good argument.

 

 

Gays aren't slaves' date=' they're missing a specific freedom. Welcome to life -- aren't we all missing some specific freedom or other? Way it goes.

 

I think banning gay marriage is wrong, but I also think that in talking about enforcement solutions that are against the will of the majority we are hyperinflating the importance of this problem. We can afford to solve this one gradually over time, and there's a tremendous benefit to doing so. So that's what we should do, in my opinion. [/quote']That's crazy. "It doesn't impact ME much, so let's just let it work itself out." Sorry, mate. That's crazy.

 

The majority is shifting, and the problem is hugely important to those it impacts. The fact that it doesn't impact you very much directly really matters not.

 

What you said above is just crazy, and baffling really.

 

Hey that's not fair -- I didn't say that it wasn't important because it doesn't impact me. I said that life isn't perfect, and this isn't as important as the larger issue of getting this divided society working together and allied towards common goals.

 

I don't disagree with you that the majority is coming around, and I also think we can tackle more than one problem in this society at at a time. What I'm saying is that there's more than one way to handle this, and I disagree with the suggestion made in this thread that it should be handled via ideological confrontation and judicial fiat. If opposition is coming around, then why would you want to smack them on the face and treat them like children? Have you already forgotten what they're capable of?

 

Speaking of which, and rather off topic, doesn't it strike anyone else as really Weird that a state constitution can be amended by a simple majority popular vote? I mean, what's the difference between a constitutional amendment and a law passed by ballot, then? And why even give courts judicial review and the ability to strike down laws, given that any law that passed by anything like a sizable majority of the legislature would surely be re-instated as a constitutional amendment if the court overturns it. It seem, well, dumb. I cannot for the life of me figure out why it was set up that way, rather than the way it works at the national level, requiring a 2/3rds vote.

 

Mokele

 

Dude that's the situation we've had in Florida for decades. Every time we'd go to the polls there'd be a cartload of the things. They finally changed it this year to make it harder to get amendments on there -- you need a 60% majority but there are other ways (legislation). It's still too easy, IMO.

 

Apparently this is a problem in a lot of states.

Edited December 21, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[Mokele]

Dude that's the situation we've had in Florida for decades. Every time we'd go to the polls there'd be a cartload of the things. They finally changed it this year to make it harder to get amendments on there -- you need a 60% majority but there are other ways (legislation). It's still too easy, IMO. Apparently this is a problem in a lot of states.

 

I don't suppose you know what the rationale for it was originally? I mean, the state constitutions were explicitly written and designed, IIRC all were written after the US Constitution, so someone must've said at some point "Let's make it possible to amend the state constitution with a 50% popular vote". Furthermore, they must've had some reason behind it in order to convince the other people who were writing it. I'm just curious what that reasoning could have been.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

I don't suppose you know what the rationale for it was originally? I mean, the state constitutions were explicitly written and designed, IIRC all were written after the US Constitution, so someone must've said at some point "Let's make it possible to amend the state constitution with a 50% popular vote". Furthermore, they must've had some reason behind it in order to convince the other people who were writing it. I'm just curious what that reasoning could have been.

 

Sure, that would be something along the lines of "if the majority of the people want something then it must be a good idea". Which is certainly an understandable sentiment in a democracy, until we consider the way politics works, and the attention span and depth of interest by the general public -- then it starts to look dangerous. Some state constitutions have been amended hundreds (or if you consider complete re-writes, thousands) of times.

 

But as we saw in California there's really not all that much difference between 50% and 60% when it comes to a motivated voting base and well-funded special interest groups. And while it's certainly possible for there to be well-funded special interest groups on BOTH sides of an issue, at the state level things tend to lopsidedly favor one one point of view or the other, because the big money has to come from the national level, and special interest groups with national focus often have more than one situation to deal with at a time. That makes it a game of timing and logistics, which is a VERY long way from what the framers intended.

 

So a lot of people who follow this sort of thing feel that a better focus is what has to be done to get an amendment on the ballot in the first place. This is a major area of legal study, with a lot of history behind it, but in a nutshell states typically allow 2-3 different methods for bringing an amendment to the voters:

 

1) Legislative process. The state legislature passes a motion to amend the constitution, which typically requires a 2/3rds majority.

 

2) Special administrative process. The governor or some sort of appointed committee decides to do it, typically with input from the public (hearings, petitions, etc). This approach is sometimes referred to as the "constitutional convention" method. Some states do not have a process like this.

 

3) Public referendum. This is the problematic one, and it typically consists of a public petition. There are various formulas used to determine whether sufficient public interest exists to warrant a vote on an amendment (some of them quite bizarre). In some states the legislature has to write the amendment, or "conform it" to meet certain requirements (such as environmental and/or economic impact statements). In other states the governor appoints someone to do this.

 

If memory serves, some states have actually dropped the problematic "public" approach completely. Others (like Florida) have recently imposed new restrictions designed to limit the sheer number of these motions that are brought forward each year. (I read somewhere that Coloradans had a whopping 53 amendments to consider this past November, but I think bascule or Phi for All posted that that was not correct. That number stuck in my head but it may have been some pundit's exaggeration for effect.)

 

It's worth keeping in mind that eliminating the public approach, or even limiting it, doesn't eliminate the influence of special interest groups on the process -- it can even increase it. If you're a special interest group and all you have to do is convince 30 or 40 legislators to go along with what you want, your job may be pretty easy.

 

It's funny how these things always seem to boil down to how much attention people are able or willing to give to an issue.

[iNow]

Hey that's not fair -- I didn't say that it wasn't important because it doesn't impact me. I said that life isn't perfect, and this isn't as important as the larger issue of getting this divided society working together and allied towards common goals.

 

It was not my intention to be unfair, so I do apologize for that. I know you're intentions are good, so I should have been more careful. However, the point I take issue with is your attempt to objectively designate the gay marriage issue as less important than getting divided peoples working together, as such a designation (less/more important) is inherently subjective.

 

Further, one could easily argue (and, in fact, I have in many of these threads) that arguing for equality in state regulations and applications thereof is actually MORE important than the less tangible and more abstract goal of coming together ideologically. The former represents an issue of personal liberties and equal application of the laws to minority groups, whereas the other represents an issue of shared progress based on deeper principles.

 

After all, we all find ourselves within at least one minority group during our lives, and we each would demand equal protections and applications of state rights and regulations when we do. That doesn't mean we cannot work in parallel to find consensus and shared interests, nor that these priorities are in any way mutually exclusive, only that some changes require immediacy while others require consistency, two rather different political arenas, indeed.

[waitforufo]

I don't suppose you know what the rationale for it was originally? I mean, the state constitutions were explicitly written and designed, IIRC all were written after the US Constitution, so someone must've said at some point "Let's make it possible to amend the state constitution with a 50% popular vote". Furthermore, they must've had some reason behind it in order to convince the other people who were writing it. I'm just curious what that reasoning could have been.

 

Washington State has an initiative process. I don't believe we can change our constitution by initiative however. I certainly hope not. Many states have no initiative process at all. I doubt I would miss ours if it were removed. I can only recall once in my life voting in favor of an initiative. Generally, even when I have been in favor of the principal, I find the law promoted poorly written. Also, they are often found unconstitutional so what's the point.

 

Further, one could easily argue (and, in fact, I have in many of these threads) that arguing for equality in state regulations and applications thereof is actually MORE important than the less tangible and more abstract goal of coming together ideologically. The former represents an issue of personal liberties and equal application of the laws to minority groups, whereas the other represents an issue of shared progress based on deeper principles.

 

I agree completely with the above well written comment.

[ParanoiA]

Actually, you CAN force a free society to do stuff. It's in the "society" part - the whole basis of society is that we *all* agree to rules in order to allow us to live together and reap the benefits of cooperation. In *this* society, we agreed to the rules of the constitution, which includes allows the courts to override the majority in order to protect the essential rights.

 

You're absolutely wrong. Period. Go ahead, make me like the color blue. Think you can make me recognize you're a scientist? Nope. I don't believe it and I don't have to. Nothing you can do about it. I don't believe in science in my religion. I don't have to recognize you're married, to a woman even, no matter how much the state recognizes it. As far as I'm concerned, you're boyfriend and girlfriend. Now go ahead, make me believe otherwise.

 

You can't police the public's beliefs, only their behavior. So our recognition and belief of labels and concepts is entirely separate from our duty to comply with their "legal" existence by the state.

 

That's free society for ya'. They have to obey the rules, created by the state, none of which have to do with forcing us to recognize labels you give yourself, except maybe in the capacity of business as a result of said rules, but you can't make people believe what you want.

 

Now the STATE on the other hand....there's where the force recognition comes in, because that's the sovereign collective governing the land, that is duty bound to do it fairly, to put it brief. It is not "free to discriminate" like free society is. So you're fighting for them to recognize your union to release rights and privilege that are being denied at the moment, and I'm all for your fight. New laws need to be drafted to get this straight.

 

So, you support beating your wife? Because that's what marriage meant at the time it was written.

 

Prove it. Prove the word "marriage" meant 'the union between a man and a woman which includes beating the woman residually'.

 

I think you're attempting to roll old morals and behavior into the definition of an old word, which is a lexicographical fallacy of a kind I've never encountered before. Quite fascinating.

 

You support banning interracial marriage? Because that's what marriage meant at the time it was written.

 

No it didn't, as evidenced by Loving vs Virginia. They ruled against Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws since they didn't believe "marriage" could be denied on racial grounds, per the fourteenth amendment, so marriage could not have been defined as 'the union between a man and woman of same race'.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

 

You support women having no rights beyond as property of their husband? Because that's what marriage meant at the time it was written.

 

Again, prove it. Prove the word "marriage" was defined as 'the union between a man and woman in which the woman is property'. No, rather I think they qualified the word "marriage" with something like "forced", "arranged", whatever, because the word "marriage", by itself, is not sufficient - it is not defined with that baggage. And, for purposes of our discussion, it has to be the definition intended by those who wrote it into law, which is quite a subjective nasty reality, but nevertheless is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret.

 

Terms, and societies, evolve. We can and do change terms. Remember when "voter" meant "white, rich male over 21"?

 

No, the word "voter" meant 'a person who votes' or an elector. The "white, rich male over 21' is the baggage we added, into law. You do realize we're talking about the definition of words right? This is the second violation of this weird fallacy where you seem to be lumping whole phrases into the definition of a single word, as if the dictionary of the time would actually contain all that spin.

 

The more important point is that new laws need to be written. Sneaking in the back door with pretentious misguided nobility that sets dangerous precedents in the interpretation of our laws is no violation of principle I want to see played out. It's entirely against the mission of the Judicial Branch to retroactively apply modern updates to the lexicon.

 

Demand new laws. Or demand rewritting laws. That's how our republic works. You'll have far more of the people in support once the word "marriage" is out of the argument and a proposed legal structure that imposes civil unions as the new verbiage for all combinations, regardless of race or gender, and to be effected by the same rights and privilege as any law or contract that grants or restricts rights and privilege to so-called "married" persons. Personally, I'd take that even further, but I'll save that for some other day.

 

So' date=' you accept the CA supreme court's decision to legalize gay marriage, then? Because they did their job - they weighed everything, and found that "tradition" wasn't a sufficient reason to deny people rights.

 

And you do realize that "argument from tradition" is a logical fallacy, right?[/quote']

 

No sir, that's not the argument I'm using. Pay attention, I'm operating per the charge of the Judicial Branch of our government. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the laws of the constitution; to interpret the intent of the legislation, which obviously includes an obligatory reverence to the time in which it was written. This is evidenced in just the latest SCOTUS ruling on handguns in DC v Heller:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

The Court based its reasoning on the grounds:

 

That the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' date=' shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, [b']based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning; [/b]

 

That the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;

 

That historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century; and

 

That none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).

 

As you can see, the supreme court has to interpret the meaning of words per the time they were written, as that's what makes the whole mechanism of a rigid document based legal structure work. That's why we add laws, or edit current ones, we make changes as we evolve as a society. It's time now to add laws, change some, strike some down - exercise the constitutional process like it was designed.

 

Bullshit. Slippery slope fallacy.

 

The change is based on sound legal judgment - the 14th ammendment, which guarantees equality under the law. The idea that somehow the Nazi's are going to sneak in and change terms around is just plain stupid.

 

Tell that to the framers of the constitution. Share your insight with the supreme court justices since it's apparent they don't share your view. It's quite apparent their mission statement obligates them to revere the language in the chronological context it was written.

 

Reductio ad absurbium. 3 fallacies in a single post, that's got to be a record.

 

Thanks for the demonstration on responsible moderator discourse. Noted.

 

My nuclear weapons = gun analogy was just a hypothetical to demonstrate the absurdity of changing the constitution by simply redefining what words mean. The meaning of words can change all they want, but we are obligated to interpret the laws as the words were meant at the time they were written. I'm sorry you're having a hard time with it, I tried to give you an example, I'm not sure how else to explain it. It just seems like common sense to me.

 

A fringe viewpoint does not constitute a legitimate legal-based objection. How many libertarian US Senators or Representatives are there again? Oh' date=' that's right, zero.

 

See what I said in the segement you quoted: "Any other reason accounts for such a small percentage of the opposition as to be inconsequential. "

 

Your views are a tiny fringe group, not the vast bulk of those who oppose gay marriage.[/quote']

 

Well, it certainly is lonely at the top, I'll give you that. It is unfortunate to live amongst such a saturation of stupidy, but I manage.

 

But seriously, I certainly have no idea what percentage share my view and I didn't notice your qualifier.

 

You could have fooled me, given how you're scraping the bottom of the logical barrel in order to justify your opposition to gay marriage.

 

I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I'm opposed to retroactive lexicographical updates to our laws thus undermining the point of rule of law. If you can get rights, privilege, whatever, calling it "gay marriage" with new laws or changing the language of current ones, then I'm all for it. My only concern is the method of using courts to redefine old language - that's ruling from the bench.

 

Really? So I should tell my wife she's now basically my slave and property, and beat the hell out of her if she dares speak back?

 

No, because we passed laws about that. We did not change the definition of words, we changed the laws themselves.

 

No' date=' I have REPEATEDLY said that not all political disagreements are equal, and some are clearly more important than others, something you conveniently ignore in order to falsely represent my views as some radical demagogue.

 

You're mis-representing my views in order to have something to more easily attack. That's called a Strawman.[/quote']

 

No, I entirely accept the subjective nature of prioritizing political disagreements, but there are enough of them that cause real life pain and suffering, like yours, that if we all were to exercise militant discourse, like you feel justified in doing, then we would have an unworkable republic.

 

You just don't want to accept the philosophical component to this, so I really don't see how we can benefit any further with this exchange. It just doesn't seem like you've actually, critically thought out the consequences if our constitutional republic didn't adhere to a static record of law, as it's designed and implemented. As long as we disagree on that point, we're going to disagree on everything downstream from it.

 

Still an interesting discussion, I think.

 

 

Well' date=' yes. It does exemplify the hypocrisy of the Christian view on this, but more... It defeats the argument that "marriage has been the same for 5,000 years," which is the context in which it was first shared in this discussion.

 

I think it may have been you who said this, or maybe ParanoiA, but the fact is that no, marriage has changed dramatically through the years, and the Christian church itself had gay marriages often just a few short centuries ago.[/quote']

 

No, it shouldn't have been worded that way, I believe I said that marriage has been defined as between a man and woman for 5,000 years - not that it's been the "same". I don't care if that changed from slaves, to property, to state sactioned beating, prostitution, whatever dramatic appendage you like, the male-female component was there for 5,000 years. But I also conceded this point, since I have no way to support it, nor any real interest in it. I wish I could withraw it entirely, as I shouldn't have even brought up the point if I wasn't prepared to defend it.

Edited December 21, 2008 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

No, it shouldn't have been worded that way, I believe I said that marriage has been defined as between a man and woman for 5,000 years - not that it's been the "same". I don't care if that changed from slaves, to property, to state sactioned beating, prostitution, whatever dramatic appendage you like, the male-female component was there for 5,000 years. But I also conceded this point, since I have no way to support it, nor any real interest in it. I wish I could withraw it entirely, as I shouldn't have even brought up the point if I wasn't prepared to defend it.

 

No worries, friend. I know you conceded the point, and that you are also not against gay marriage. Further, it was not really you who suggested the 5,000 year definition, but it was Warren (whom you quoted in post #8). He was the one who said it, therefore he was the one being ultimately rebutted. You just felt the brunt of it since you were the one sharing his quote in support of your argument.

 

I think part of the passion against him is the fact that he equates gay marriage with incest and pedophilia. That's where he is being an ignorant buffoon, and that's where people take issue with him and his invitation to the inauguration.

 

He has done great work, on climate change, helping in africa, and many other things, and his leadership on those issues is to be commended and acknowledged. However, he is still really wrong and really ignorant on the issue of gay marriage, and his heavy assistance in the passage of Prop 8 should be strongly criticized, and he ostracized for equivocating gay marriage with pedophilia and incest and supporting state laws that are implicitly discriminatory.

[Mokele]

You can't police the public's beliefs, only their behavior. So our recognition and belief of labels and concepts is entirely separate from our duty to comply with their "legal" existence by the state.

 

Really? It's a good thing I used the word "do" instead of "think" in the prior post.

 

Read the post before you reply. This just makes you look careless and sloppy.

 

Prove the word "marriage" meant 'the union between a man and a woman which includes beating the woman residually'.

 

Read any history book. Seriously, any of them. Look up anything on the history of spousal abuse.

 

I think you're attempting to roll old morals and behavior into the definition of an old word, which is a lexicographical fallacy of a kind I've never encountered before. Quite fascinating.

 

Really? Because you've been committing it since the beginning of this thread, by insisting that the old morals about homosexuality are somehow part of the definition of marriage.

 

Which is it? Are morals not part of the definition, in which case the objection to gay marriage is bunk? Or are morals part of it, in which case we've changed the definition multiple times, so your objection is moot? You're wrong either way.

 

No it didn't, as evidenced by Loving vs Virginia. They ruled against Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws since they didn't believe "marriage" could be denied on racial grounds, per the fourteenth amendment, so marriage could not have been defined as 'the union between a man and woman of same race'.

 

Wrong. Find me a written definition of marriage in the US constitution. Huh, there isn't one, just in state laws, like VIRGINIA, which explicitly forbade miscegenation. And it took the SC to overturn it.

 

Getting tired of being wrong?

 

Prove the word "marriage" was defined as 'the union between a man and woman in which the woman is property'.

 

See above, or take high school history class.

 

No, the word "voter" meant 'a person who votes' or an elector.

 

And, by your logic, "marriage" means "a ceremony uniting people into a single legal entity". So all this other crap is just baggage, including the restriction to man+woman.

 

Thanks for conceding the argument so easily.

 

It's entirely against the mission of the Judicial Branch to retroactively apply modern updates to the lexicon.

 

Yes, how dare they change the definition of "voter" to something other that white male!

 

Oh, did you need that argument to prop up your crumbling belief system? Sorry.

 

The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the laws of the constitution; to interpret the intent of the legislation, which obviously includes an obligatory reverence to the time in which it was written.

 

Wow, so all laws made before 1980 are void when applied to the internet, since that wasn't around back then.

 

Sorry, but the courts have repeatedly overturned prior understanding in the service of a much more important goal - freedom.

 

Thanks for the demonstration on responsible moderator discourse. Noted.

 

Ahh, persecution, the last cry of those losing an argument.

 

How many posts of yours have been edited? How many warnings have you been given? How many times have you been banned from the forum since the inception of this thread?

 

Oh, that's right, ZERO.

 

Face up the the fact you're getting PWNED with some semblance of dignity.

 

I'm opposed to retroactive lexicographical updates to our laws thus undermining the point of rule of law. If you can get rights, privilege, whatever, calling it "gay marriage" with new laws or changing the language of current ones, then I'm all for it. My only concern is the method of using courts to redefine old language - that's ruling from the bench.

 

Yes, ruling from the bench. Which is exactly what the courts are for - protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

 

No, because we passed laws about that. We did not change the definition of words, we changed the laws themselves.

 

In case you didn't notice, the laws are what defines the words. That's WHY there've been all these laws 'defining marriage' - because there IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION that restricts it to opposite-sex couples in many states.

 

Do you think words were magically handed down to us on granite slabs from God? No. They're human inventions, and they change meaning. And the definitions are part of the law - change the law, change the definition.

 

It just doesn't seem like you've actually, critically thought out the consequences if our constitutional republic didn't adhere to a static record of law, as it's designed and implemented.

 

Oh, I know the consequences of that - stagnation and death.

 

It seems the founding fathers agree with me, since they provided for 'amendments' to alter things after the fact.

 

 

PWNED.

 

Mokele

[ParanoiA]

Read any history book. Seriously, any of them. Look up anything on the history of spousal abuse.

 

You're kidding right? Let me get this straight...you want me to consult a history book regarding the definition of words? What's next? Consulting the dictionary regarding historic events? Awesome.

 

Really? Because you've been committing it since the beginning of this thread' date=' by insisting that the old morals about homosexuality are somehow part of the definition of marriage.

 

Which is it? Are morals not part of the definition, in which case the objection to gay marriage is bunk? Or are morals part of it, in which case we've changed the definition multiple times, so your objection is moot? You're wrong either way.[/quote']

 

We're talking about the dictionary definition of the english language, not the egregious treatment of the institution historically. Why do I keep having to remind you of this? I don't care if women were sold into marriage, I challenge your claim that the word "marriage" would be defined in any dictionary as 'the union between a man and woman as the result of being purchased by the man'. Or any of your outrageous bullshit that you've tied to the definition of marriage - I didn't say "typical characteristics" of marriage, and you know it. We're talking about the definition of the word "marriage".

 

You're wrong. Time to put up or shut up. You made the claim, now back it up.

 

Wrong. Find me a written definition of marriage in the US constitution. Huh' date=' there isn't one, just in state laws, like VIRGINIA, which explicitly forbade miscegenation. And it took the SC to overturn it.

 

Getting tired of being wrong?[/quote']

 

Predictably being right? Yes, I'm quite tired of it...

 

I just proved you wrong and you're ignoring it. The supreme court did not agree that race was a qualifier of the term "marriage".

 

See above, or take high school history class.

 

Discover the difference between a history book and a dictionary. It'll change your life.

 

And' date=' by your logic, "marriage" means "a ceremony uniting people into a single legal entity". So all this other crap is just baggage, including the restriction to man+woman.

 

Thanks for conceding the argument so easily.[/quote']

 

No, the ceremony is just a traditional obligation humans enjoy and is useful for demonstrating the label of "marriage" and the institution so others will recognize you as such. It's a performance for the free society. For the state, "marriage" is a more clinical arrangement requiring licensing, and whatever bureaucracies they've come up with. The lexicographical interpretation of marriage has been, and still seems to be, an arrangement between a man and a woman. Therefore laws drafted using the term marriage, should be interpreted using the accepted definition at the time the law was written. That simple.

 

Getting tired of being wrong?

Yes' date=' how dare they change the definition of "voter" to something other that white male!

 

Oh, did you need that argument to prop up your crumbling belief system? Sorry.[/quote']

 

Apparently, no, you're not tired of being wrong.

 

Laws were passed to force our government to recognize anyone of any race, any geneder, over 18 as being eligible, not the redefinition of words. That's why you're wrong. No ad hominem is going to cover it up or let you wriggle out of it.

 

Wow' date=' so all laws made before 1980 are void when applied to the internet, since that wasn't around back then.

 

Sorry, but the courts have repeatedly overturned prior understanding in the service of a much more important goal - freedom.[/quote']

 

That makes absolutely no sense. We simply interpret those laws the same way we interpret laws before we had automobiles. The supreme court interprets the intent of the legislation, as it was written within the context of its history. And it should be no surprise that most laws are written quite forward thinking anyway - and that's part of the "intent" that is being interpreted by the supreme court justices. That's why the language is always so open ended and awkward for some to read, because they're attempting to accomodate the unforeseen. And no, that's not a license for retroactive back door lexicographical expansion and restriction of rights and privilege.

 

If you don't like how it works take it up with the supreme court.

 

Ahh' date=' persecution, the last cry of those losing an argument.

 

How many posts of yours have been edited? How many warnings have you been given? How many times have you been banned from the forum since the inception of this thread?

 

Oh, that's right, ZERO.

 

Face up the the fact you're getting PWNED with some semblance of dignity.[/quote']

 

I think I'm doing quite well. I've managed to keep my cool in spite of your petulant desperate attempt at puffing out your chest and predictable eccentric irreverance in some misguided effort to redirect a good discussion into a childish competitve posting match.

 

It's clear you've reached the point where you're just not interested in the substance and engagement of these ideas and you're more interested in "winning" and "pwning", or whatever trendy vocabulary you're into, which is why so many of your retorts above just keep getting more insulting.

 

Yes, ruling from the bench. Which is exactly what the courts are for - protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

 

In case you didn't notice' date=' the laws are what defines the words. That's WHY there've been all these laws 'defining marriage' - because there IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION that restricts it to opposite-sex couples in many states.

 

Do you think words were magically handed down to us on granite slabs from God? No. They're human inventions, and they change meaning. And the definitions are part of the law - change the law, change the definition.[/quote']

 

Oh' date=' I know the consequences of that - stagnation and death.

 

It seems the founding fathers agree with me, since they provided for 'amendments' to alter things after the fact.[/quote']

 

Hilarious. Yes, Mokele, very good. And amendments are CHANGES IN THE LAW. Just like I said. Glad we agree. So get started on that amendment. It's the right thing to do and it's another step to the evolution of our republic to a truly bias free, diverse, tolerant society.

[Pangloss]

It was not my intention to be unfair, so I do apologize for that. I know you're intentions are good, so I should have been more careful. However, the point I take issue with is your attempt to objectively designate the gay marriage issue as less important than getting divided peoples working together, as such a designation (less/more important) is inherently subjective.

 

Further, one could easily argue (and, in fact, I have in many of these threads) that arguing for equality in state regulations and applications thereof is actually MORE important than the less tangible and more abstract goal of coming together ideologically. The former represents an issue of personal liberties and equal application of the laws to minority groups, whereas the other represents an issue of shared progress based on deeper principles.

 

After all, we all find ourselves within at least one minority group during our lives, and we each would demand equal protections and applications of state rights and regulations when we do. That doesn't mean we cannot work in parallel to find consensus and shared interests, nor that these priorities are in any way mutually exclusive, only that some changes require immediacy while others require consistency, two rather different political arenas, indeed.

 

Thanks, I appreciate that.

 

I agree that the importance of an issue to an individual is not an objective matter. What can and should be objective, however, is the process by which society makes a decision on whether or not to solve a problem. On that basis I believe that gay marriage is simply not sufficiently important to warrant a judicial fiat or any other solution that goes against the majority opinion, because of the repercussions of that action.

 

But I have no problem with your reasons for thinking differently. I absolutely agree that there are many times and issues on which we shouldn't compromise. Equal protection is not one of them. If it were I'd be demanding an end to affirmative action and progressive taxation tomorrow -- as you say, we are all members of some minority, you're absolutely right about that. But I see no need to press those issues. That's because I believe those specific freedoms are less important than the larger issues at stake. In short, like the founding fathers, I believe in compromise.

 

But obviously we feel differently at a fundamental level and I respect your opinion on it. I do think we agree on whether public opinion can continue to be pressed in concert with other efforts.

 

I think you're going to find the next four years much more frustrating than I will. I'm going to be really happy with the 10% change here and the 20% change there, on this issue and that. You're going to be very upset at the lack of 100% change across the board. But there's no question in my mind that we'll be better off with those 10% and 20% changes than we would be had we put our feet down on every issue and gotten nothing done, as has been the case now for decades on issue after issue (particularly energy).

 

I say this not to attack you, but just to suggest that you reconsider what the word "progress" means, especially with regard to the long timeline (and memory) of human history.

[Mokele]

No intelligible response, just more whining that you can't support?

 

Good, argument over.

[iNow]

I absolutely agree that there are many times and issues on which we shouldn't compromise. Equal protection is not one of them. If it were I'd be demanding an end to affirmative action and progressive taxation tomorrow -- as you say, we are all members of some minority, you're absolutely right about that. But I see no need to press those issues. That's because I believe those specific freedoms are less important than the larger issues at stake. In short, like the founding fathers, I believe in compromise.

And I, like the founding fathers, think all men (humans) are created equal, and should be subject to equal rights and priveleges of the law.

 

 

I'm not sure what makes you think that I'll be "very upset" if I don't get 100% of the change I want, but it really matters not. There really are some things on which we should not accept compromise. I see institutionalized bigotry against homosexuals supported only by religion to be one of those things on which we should never compromise. Seems the founding fathers agreed with me on that one, too, otherwise we'd not likely have an establishment clause.

[Pangloss]

Quite right, and well put.

[waitforufo]

A well written rebuke of Warren by Christopher Hitchens some might find interesting.

 

http://slate.msn.com/id/2207148/