Redstate

Gay marriage, but i do support our representative democracy and if the elected reps in California vote for legalizing gay marriage, then the people can either accept it or vote them out.  I absolutely abhor the whole ballot initiative process in general, as in most cases the people do not understand what they are voting for/against nor how it will impact the state in the long term (gay marriage is obviously an exception as it is pretty straight forward, although Ohio's was stupidly designed).

In our representative democracy the voters will have their chance to speak their minds by voting their elected representatives out of office.  I think many will find that their fears of some homosexual apocolypse are completely unfounded.  And marriage as an institution will be strengthened by allowing loving gay couples into the fold.

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=107812

I am a gay man in California. My partner and I have been together for 16 years. We are covered under the Domestic Partner statutes here. Under those statutes, domestic partners have the same spousal rights as married people under CALIFORNIA LAW. Legalizing gay marriage will do nothing for us. We will have no more rights than we have now. The feds don't recognize domestic partnerships here, and they won't recognize our gay marriages either, for federal purposes such as taxes and Social Security inheritance. So, what's the point? I hope Arnold vetoes the bill. It's just going to enrage the far right here, and give us nothing in return. Blechh.

Arnold's a public official too, and the people elected him to have the final vote to accept or veto legislation.  So I see no problem with him vetoing the bill, CA elected him to be part of that decision too.  And given the fact he has stated many times, and his citizens voted, that marriage should remain as it always has between one man and one woman, he should veto the bill.

Let me get this straight: you do support representative democracy, but abhor the ballot initiative process.  Your stated reason for this disdain:

in most cases the people do not understand what they are voting for/against nor how it will impact the state in the long term

Do you not see the irony in those two positions?  Voting for representatives is filled with the same intrinsic doubt and uncertainty about the long-term impact of ones decision that you attach to the ballot initiative process.  You trust the citizenry to elect individuals to represent them, but you don't trust these same citizens to make a decision based on a statement.

There is an inerent contradiction to your positions.  I would argue that the ballot initiative process should be more plainly understandable and less likely to produce "disappointing" results (e.g. a different outcome than you anticipated when casting your vote) than elections of representatives.

Furthermore, there is the issue of weighing costs and benefits.  Voting on a single ballot initiative is a largely, if not wholly, independent decision.  You get to decide one issue, disconnected from all others.  When choosing a representative for whom to vote one must balance pros and cons of the publicly espoused positions, which are not binding in any legal sense, and decide on the whole which of the candidates is most likely to result in the greatest outcome from your personal perspective.  Talk about complex!  There are numerous issues there that economists would love to debate and dispute.  How much should one consider the likely outcome of the election when casting ones vote?  How much influence or consideration should third party candidates receive when contemplating ones voting decision?  Surely you can agree that voting for a representative is an infinitely more complex operation than deciding if one agrees or disagrees with a single issue, disconnected from all other issues, right?

I wish the leaders of the gay-rights movement would listen to the common-sense logic of your argument.  Pushing a bill like this serves 'rank and file' gays very little and holds the potential for serious backlash.

Re: You get to decide one issue, disconnected from all others.

In many instances that's a big problem: voters focus only on a single issue and ignore the trade-offs that may be necessary in the overall big picture. Excessive use of ballot initiatives is one reason that CA has become so hamstrung and ungovernable. A similar problem, of somewhat lesser magnitude, exists here in Florida as well. It's fairly easy to convince voters that any given cause is worthy of their support in isolation. But in the long run, all those worthy causes can add up to big money, or in some case produce laws that are in logical contradiction with one another.

Now.

The feds don't recognize domestic partnerships here, and they won't recognize our gay marriages either, for federal purposes such as taxes and Social Security inheritance.

Would you like to see the fed recognize your situation and extend to you the benefits heterosexual couples have?

How does that play in the face of a possible marriage amendment barring homosexual marriage?

To what level of concern do you have more strife with - lack of marriage rights or lack of financial benefits already experienced by heterosexual couples?

After the illegal marriages in San Francisco last year, he said courts or the legislature could create homosexual marriage and he would go along. He has had too many positions on this issue. Now he will veto and his own statements will be used against him because he did not have one clear position all along.

I never would have voted for him after he announced his support for abortion. I think Republicans should run a strong primary challenger against him. Bill Simon was one of the worst political candidates I have ever seen and he almost beat Gray Davis. I think California will support a reasonable and fair conservative even if he is conservative on social issues. I think they are sick of the movie star.

For several months there have been iniatives in the works. One will ban homosexual marriage. One will ban homosexual marriage, civil unions, and repeal the state's domestic partnership plan. There might be another which goes further because of fears the first two will not be enough to stop gays.

There has been no public education on this issue so people may not know what they are voting for. I think they should streamline into one amendment.

Do you know anything about the ongoing iniative campaign in California to repeal domestic partnerships? This has been in the works for about six months and will probably be on the ballot next year. I know some people in California who use the domestic partnerhip plan, I would hate to see them left with nothing.

10 years?  20 years?  Should lawmakers wait for national poll numbers to rise on this issue?  Should California wait for the federal government?

I generally support legalizing gay marriage as long as it is done democratically and not by judicial fiat.  OTOH, I am a bit leary about legislators willy-nilly overriding the clearly expressed will of the people.  So I think Prop 22 should be repealed the same way it was enacted... by the people.

As a native Californian I can tell you that the reason the Republicans have had such a hard time in the state recently is precisely because the social conservatives control the state party.  California is not only a majority Democratic state, it is also a state in which there is no majority support in the populace at large for the conservative social agenda, the initiative on gay marriage notwithstanding.

The only way a moderate Republican like Arnold was able to even get to the Governor's mansion was through an extraordinary at-large election that allowed him to bypass the primary process.  In California, at least, all things that are commonly said about the Democrats on the national level are pretty much true for the Republicans on the state level.  Go figure.

Arnold is pretty much toast at this point because he doesn't have a constituency anymore.  The Dems are livid about his attcks on teachers, nurses, and state government in general.  The socially conservative Republicans, if they vote for him at all, will do it while holding their noses--assuming, that is, that Arnold doesn't make a sharp right turn pretty quick.  There may be some moderate Republicans who will support him, but then again, they don't run the party.  On the other hand, for purely political reasons, I would welcome a social conservative challenger from the Republicans.  Such a candidate would get thumped in the general election.  Thank God for California.

According to the state Constitution, if Schwarzenegger signs the bill, the voters must then vote on it, as it amends Prop 22, an initiative statute:

Article 2, Section 10 (c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.

It's too late to put this on the November 2005 ballot, so it will go on the March 2006 primary ballot.

they might hit us or push us down or break our toys

That's the single lamest excuse for encouraging the veto I've ever heard. Perhaps you don't care if your domestic partnership is ever recognized in another part of the country, but I for one like to have the freedom to relocate, like every other American, without risking that what I've worked very hard to build with my partner is stripped away. It's gonna be a long hard slog, I know. But selfish, self-contented, not to mention astoundingly cowardly Quislings like you make it all that much harder for the rest of us.

Here in the South, most States have passed the Uniform Strip All Property Interests from Gay Couples Act (see, e.g., Fla. Stat. Ann. 1009.201, et seq., and O.C.G.A. 99-5-1, et seq.). But you went and caught on to us.

Or maybe you mean the Uniform Separate Gay Couples And Place Them In Internment Camps Act? Really, your hysteria is somewhat ambiguous.

Ban Gays From Adopting Because They Are Dangerous To Children Acts.

I suspect there would probably be a good deal of support for a law like that in many parts of this country.

One will ban homosexual marriage, civil unions, and repeal the state's domestic partnership plan. There might be another which goes further because of fears the first two will not be enough to stop gays

Stop gays from what?  

. . .if this is a tactical move by the Democrats in the California Legislature.  This law will effectively freeze the playing field on the subject until the voters address it in March 2006.  Whatever happens, it will probably be too late afterwards to get another initiative on the issue on the November 2006 ballot--denying the Republicans an issue that would insure a large conservative turnout for the congressional elections that month.

Does Prop 22 bar the state from recognizing any homosexual marriages or does Prop 22 bar California from recognizing homosexuals marriages from other states?

Are you saying they are purposely inciting public backlash against homosexuals so conservative voters will vote in March but not in November, when most major offices are on the ballot?

Again one wonders why homosexual people trust Democrats to look out for their interests.

it is more they really don't trust Republicans to look out for their interests more than they trust Democrats.

They believe if there is a legal niche established for homosexuals, even if that niche is only to provide for small incremental benefits or hospitalization rights, the door will be opened for homosexual marriage. Given the way courts twist and bend laws to grant homosexual marriage, I can understand their fear, but I do think some form of partnerships should be kept legal. If a homosexual couple wants some legal responsibilities granted by the state, I have no objection. I only object to the defining marriage as being between anything but a man and a woman.

And have been since Duff Sundheim took over the party reins in 03.  After losing every single elected cabinet position, the party convention in Jan 04 tossed every single one out.  No social conservative has won a statewide office since George Deukmaijian won the governorship in 1986.  And that includes US Senators as well.  Abortion will never be illegal in CA.  There already is a trigger law which will automatically restore the pre-Roe standards that non other than Ronald Reagan signed into law.  The national social conservative platform is killing us in CA.  

Is Arnold through?  Doubtful.  First of all, there is going to be a backlash against the state lawmakers for this stunt.  The people clearly voted no with Prop 22 by 61% in 2000.  Granted, attitudes do change but there is no indication that it has reached the tipping point.  If anything, this will help Arnold with the gerrymandering initiative that is on the ballot this November.

The anti gay marriage initiatives will probably get enough signatures for the June 06 primary election.  Prior to this action by the Legislators, I would have guessed that they would have been resoundingly defeated.  The one that strips gays of even the right to make wills is so hateful and mean spirited that it probably will be defeated.  But the one that puts the Legislators back into line just might pass, if only for the public to prove a point with the Legislators.

Arnold just about has no choice but to veto the same sex marriage bill.  He has been very clear that he respects the will of the people through the initiative process.  If he doesn't veto it, he will be through politically.  If he does, he will probably win all of his November initiatives and put some fear back into the state legislators.  And probably skate back easily to win reelection next year.

Things like having long-term relationships, have stable families...oh, the horror!!

Remember, the original post said that no Republicans voted in favor of the bill. Not one! It was unanimous. In Hollywood and the LA Times, the GOP will get the usual slander hurled at them. If Arnold signs the bill, he's left every one of exposed. What's the point of winning the State House if the man will stick his finger in the eye of his friends? Governor, this is an easy call.

Your "joke" is more or less a reality in Virginia, you know, where (the law is fuzzy, but it Jonathan Rauch among others suggest it means that) contracts between gay couples can be rendered null and void by the state.

"A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited." It goes on to add that any such union, contract or arrangement entered into in any other state, "and any contractual rights created thereby," are "void and unenforceable in Virginia."  

The question is whether contracts arranged to ensure shared custody of a child, shared assets, etc. in another state will strike some future Virginian judge as purporting to bestow the privileges of marriage. Sorry if I can't see the humor in that, but it's a bit too ambiguous, as you note, for me to take lightly.

And have been for quite awhile.  This has to do with the gerrymandered districts which all but assures that the most radical Dems and far right candidates win.  The candidates win the primary and at that point, the general election becomes a coronation and meaningless.  What slipped under the radar screen last week is that the drivers licenses for illegals passed and is now awaiting a veto from Arnold.  Clearly the Legislators know the public mood on this one but they choose to ignore it.  

And it is a little difficult for gays to support Bush & Company when Bush comes out in support of a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.  The amendment has absolutely no chance of ever garnering enough national support and did nothing but divide the country further.  

BTW, the primary next year is back to its original June date.  

The measure against homosexual partnerships will make the ballot and would have whether or not the assembly passed this legislation. Arnold is savvy enough to try to piggyback opposition to homosexual marriage, but he has sent too many mixed messages to the voters. They will not support his other measures unless he gives them a reason to support them. Blasting homosexual marriage is not enough reason, because voters know they can bar homosexual marriage through the iniative process without making other changes in their state government. The public can see through insincerity, lack of principles - that is why the California voters dislike both Arnold and their legislature.

If Arnold is reelected, he will probably be another Gray Davis, personally unpopular and haunted by his failures. The public elected a movie star blank slate and lashed out when they realized who they really put into office.

I fear as long as Arnold is in office, the Democrats will continue to hold all other power. Voters probably do not trust him to make major decisions or to have a Republican legislature. He is now seen as the face of the California Republican Party - a wishy-washy, abrasive showboat who is pro-abortion and anti-gun at a time when more and more Californians and Americans seem to be questioning abortion as well as gun grabbing. I think he will taint whatever he touches, and a clean-cut, smart conservative, a Dino Rossi type Republican, would impress voters. Arnold is not that type of Republican.

Bill Clinton and a Democrat Congress passed more legislation against homosexuals than any Republican Congress or President ever has. Bill Clinton wanted John Kerry to support amendments that are so broad, domestic violence cases in Ohio are being dismissed because of that state's amendment. For this, homosexuals give how much money and how much volunteer time. If Bill Clinton were in office he probably would have supported the same federal amendment Bush supported.

If homosexuals had more political sense they would try to appeal to Republicans. To do otherwise simply signals their own doom. If they identify themselves with groups like NARAL, NOW, the Brady Campaign, groups who have alienated more and more Americans, they are going to marginalize themselves. Yet they continue to let their leaders do this. Very pathetic, if you ask me. I know some gay people who are not brainwashed by the Human Rights Campaign identity politics, but they are still a minority of a minority. I hope other gays someday wake up to just how little they gain from being Democrats.

The build up in your post was leading me to think that you were going to advocate, as you did earlier, for a social conservative candidate as a reasonable alternative to Schwarzenegger.  Rossi is a moderate... that's why he almost won in WA.  

Also, I don't know why you would assume that the Dems would put forth another candidate like Gray Davis.  Even us Democrats were ashamed at his complete ineptitude.  If you want to underestimate your opposition, go right ahead, but I would be extremely surprised if the Dems allowed themselves to be lulled into the kind of complacency that got Davis on the ticket.

Schwarzenegger still might be able to pull this one out of his hat, as an earlier post suggested, but he's got some upward climbing to do, and he'll need a lot of luck.  The gay marriage bill is a lose-lose for him, though.  The negative consequences of signing it have already been well explained.  If he veto's it, however, he will end up alienating some voters who now support him.  But I don't see how the veto will gain him any more votes, and I certainly don't see how its related to the rest of his agenda.

while I think the place to decide the issue is the legislature, I am not sure the legislature should override the will of the people.

Prop 22 is several years old now, it is quite possible opinions have changed.  Almost makes me think the legislature should revisit prop 22, to see where current opinion really is, and then go from there.

But a part of me finds this almost a nullification of the will of the people, and that doesn't sit well with me.

P

You mean honest in how much they generally abhor homosexuals?

You don't see a lot of Democrats wailing about how horrible Lawrence v Texas was.  

Most homosexuals look at gay marriage as a goal to achieve someday.  Virtually ALL homosexuals believe that law criminalizing homosexual behaviour should be abolished immediately by whatever means possible.

Rossi had a record against abortion, he never pretended otherwise. He told voters abortion was not a state issue and voters trusted him enough to almost elect him. If a pro-life candidate can almost win in Washington, why can't he win in California?

Does anyone know who Westley or Angelides are? If Democrats are happy with their choices, why did they keep asking Rob 'Meathead' Reiner to run?

Democrats are assuming Republicans will never regain momentum in California. They are coasting. Unfortunately with Arnold at the helm, they may be right. I think before Arnold, California Republicans had an identity crisis, now the only crisis is that the public distrusts and hates the so called star of the party.

Dan Lundgren ran against Gray Davis and lost in 98 primarily because of his anti abortion rhetoric.  Clean cut, articulate Catholic from Long Beach (?), experienced public servant.  The social conservative platform was thrashed from one end of the state to the other.

In 02, every single elected office went Democratic, including traditionally Republican oriented positions such as Treasurer. Whatever the Republican Party was selling, the voters in California weren't buying.  I cannot remember the last social conservative Republican elected Senator in this state.  Pete Wilson was a social moderate, or if you prefer liberal, on all social issues.

California has more of a Libertarian outlook to social matters which differs greatly from the national platform.  Consider it more of a Barry Goldwater, western style Repubicanism, much different than what is going on within the Republican Party today.  But other than a few pockets of the movement, social conservatism has reached a dead end in California.  Using the recall election as something of a guidepost, only 14% of the people of California voted for the social conservative, Tom McClintock.  That says something about the mindset of California voters.

Some Republicans support sodomy laws. Some Republicans believe homosexual sex should be criminalized and prosecuted. I can't give you numbers on how many feel this way. I can tell you many people objected to Lawrence because they did not want the Supreme Court trampling over the rights of a state. State courts in Georgia overturned sodomy laws, and Republicans did not make that a national issue. State legislatures, many of them, repealed sodomy laws. People objected to the Lawrence ruling because they did not like the Supreme Court making such a broad decision and trying to mandate social change.

1.  Rossi made the argument about abortion not being a state issue in order to neutralize it in the election.  Gregoire ran a really weak campaign, and the result was a statistical tie.  With the possibility of a new Supreme Court overrulling Roe v. Wade, Rossi's tactic won't work any more, since the issue of abortion would rebound back to the states.

In any case, abortion alone is not a sufficient litmus test for a social conservative in my book.  What about his attitudes toward gays, toward the role of state government in the provision of social services, funding for education, etc.  You've got to look at the whole picture, and I think for a lot of voters in WA state, Gregoire and Rossi didn't look very different.  They certainly didn't to me.  If he really is a hard-core conservative like you claim, he certainly did an excellent job of concealing that fact from the voters.

2.  I don't know these guys either.  So what?  No one knew who Bill Clinton was either at the start of the election cycle back in 1991.  There's well over a year to go.  Time will tell if the party can find a candidate with some political charisma.

I think you're being a little hard on Arnold--not that I'm one of his supporters.  He was a political neophyte and he made a lot of mistakes.  I said earlier that he's toast.  That may have been a bit rash, since the man is clearly good at self-promotion and may yet find a way to reconnect with the electorate.

How many times did the media, and even many Republicans, tell people Arnold was the only candidate who could win. They shamed and berated McClintock for even staying in the race.

If California voters are resistant to conservative values, then Arnold will gain no political benefits for campaigning against homosexuals. Republicans would only lose in 2006. I think your point contradicts itself.

From my own experience, conservative voters are against homosexual marriage, but they are more worried about abortion and about people taking their guns. I personally object to marriage between gays, but I am more worried about unborn life, about the 2nd Amendment. I put those issues first.

has me upset. I can see no reason whatsoever to giving gays the same RIGHTS as married heteros and can also see no reason at all to change the meaning of marriage just to suit them. If you have domestic partnerships (which admittedly all states do not have) then a small minority pushing an agenda of changing the meaning of a many millennia old tradition in defiance of the will of the majority (in every poll), is nothing more than a form of tyranny.

should have said I see no reason NOT to give the same rights

But it is Republicans who are the ones lamenting the loss of state's rights when it comes to criminalizing homosexual behaviour.  

I can understand the reasoning of people that oppose the Lawrence ruling.  But you shouldn't be surprised when homosexuals react negatively to Republicans for  that attitude about Lawrence.  Or when they react negatively to Republicans in Colorado putting an referendum up that basically attacks the rights of homosexuals.

Or when Republicans propose both the DOMA and an Amendment that follows up DOMA.  

Or when Republicans publicly oppose hate crime legislation.  

Or when a leading Republican in the Senate compares homosexual sex to having sex with a box turtle

I'd imagine that most homosexuals view Democrats as mostly useless but far less dangerous than Republicans.

to say in my obtuse style is that I favor domestic partnerships but just dont call it marraige, it is not marriage, by definition, and by tradition.

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Link

My reading is that it does both.

I cannot dispute your point, and in fact agree wholeheartedly with your response.  The key is the excessive use to which you refer.  It would seem logical to draw a parallel between the procedure for ballot initiatives and the constitutional amendment process.  Amending the Constitution of the United States of America, or any other state/commonwealth, is a vital avenue of enacting needed change with the passage of time; however, it is certainly not a process to be undertaken lightly.  It would seem to me that Ballot Initiatives are a legislative analogue to the amendment process.  They're meant to enable the people to enact vital change in the rare event that politicians refuse to address it.  As I believe you would argue, it is not meant to be utilized for every pet cause that the legislature has refused to take up.

Nor should he run against them, nor will he.  Like most Californians, Arnold has publicly stated that he frankly doesn't care one way or the other about gay marriage.  Arnold respects the will of the voters, a totally different topic.  If the people of CA vote for it, he would respect the will of the people--something that we don't see very often from politicians.

Arnold is pro choice, and supports gun control.  Gun control is popular with Republicans and Dems in this state.  Too many bad incidents starting with DiFi's ascent to being Mayor of SF, to the famous shooting in Laurel Canyon where the police were outgunned by two armed robbers.  California is not a strong second amendment state, even though DiFi packs heat in her purse.  You left off stem cell research, another strong point where 58% of the population just voted for state funding of it.  Throw in legalized marijuana which the state also favors and you can see how the social conservatives will never win a statewide election here.

So how will Arnold win?  NO NEW TAXES!  Fiscal conservative policies that's how.  There is an assualt against Prop 13 which is probably more sacred than Scripture out here.  And to be honest, same sex marriage is probably going to happen one way or another out here.  But not by the Legislators who directly went against the will of the people.   A veto is coming and it probably will not hurt Arnold for the special election or his reelection next year.

. . . had little if anything to do with the merits of or support for sodomy laws but rather bringing a State issue to a federal court.

IIRC Scalia's dissent was principally based* on the "law of unintended consequences" in that by inventing a "right" to sodomy, you open the door for the Court striking down State laws on other "consensual adult activities" such as prostitution, adult incest, etc.  

Thomas' was simply that whether sodomy laws are wise or foolish, it's a matter for State legislatures and not federal courts to decide.

* I believe he also disagreed with how the Court reviewed the State's interest in this case.

Considering Arnold's fervor for ballot initiatives, how can he ignore the results of Prop 22?

I think he vetoes the bill.

Most Uniform Acts do not.

First, because the law to which you allude dealt with affirmative action and quotas, and is not on point here; and, second, because Our Robed Masters (Blessings on Their Names!) saw fit to correct the ranting bigots of Colorado and their silly supermajoritatarian tendencies.

Virginia also reserves the right to void the marriages of brothers and sisters. Did you have a point?

As for the right to share property, I would respectfully submit that you don't understand Virginia law well enough to make that assertion, although your ability to lift out of context and distort meanings is quite admirable.

As for shared custody, I see nothing about marriage or civil union. Can you point me to that part of Virginia's code or common law?

How could a law specify only contracts between "gay" individuals? That's a highly subjective term. No the priobloem with the Virginia law, and other like it (in Ohio, etc.) is that it specifies arrangements between persons of the same sex, and in the wrong hands that could easily be used to nullify busniess contracts between people of the same sex.

Marriage protection acts are one thing, but when anti-gay hysteria starts endangering basic contract law it needs to be checked.

Most of the people that I know that want to ensure that marriage is between a man and a woman are usually couples that really find that their own marriage means more to them than anything in the world.  It makes it very difficult to have any negative thoughts toward people that I respect so much.  However, I don't understand the threat to society that homosexuals pose. I think that people are worried about them adopting children.  I know it is very difficult to adopt a child and many people seeking adoption do so overseas.  

I think this issue gets to the red and blue counties.  People that live in urban centers tend to interact more with homosexuals because cities tend to be sanctuaries for homosexuals.  Cities tend to be melting pots and less homogenized so you end up being less reactive to something that might be different from yourself. Moreover, in the not to distant past, gays used to be "gay bashed" in cities. I wonder if red state people think that people in the blue conties throw rose petals at homosexuals feet when they walk past. I would imagine that there is more gay bashing in the blue counties than in the red.  If you ever knew a gay person and saw that happen to them you might be a little more defensive when you hear people belittle them.  Words can lead to actions and when you've seen evil actions you become a bit more reactive to the words. It is not macho to make fun of the weak. There are some vicious people in the cities and some of these touchy feely programs are meant to calm the environment. Let's face it we need cities to help us compete globally and we need them to be liveable for those working in them.  You can get away with pushing your own way of life in an area where everyone is just like you, but there are benefits of being tolerant of others.  Believe me, I'd rather kiss a baboon's ass than another man's lips, but this is America and it was founded by people that didn't want governments to lord over them and tell them how to live.  A big danger is when one homogenized group gets too much power, it may drive to grab control and take freedom away from others to live a different way of life.  Rich powerful families ruled Europe. It was an exclusive membership. In America, you trade on your own name. An aggressor usually attacks the weak first and the ones that people won't stand up and defend.  I think it is a sign of weakness when the strong tread on the weak.  I feel so bad for the homosexuals, what an awful hand to be dealt in life.

I think one can argue the point successfully that marriage should be between a man and woman without being demeaning and disrespectful towards homosexuals. Those that honor the weak and tolerate the different are the strongholds of our nation's freedom.

 

"read" (which is a reasonable one, BTW), but it was not the read of the groups supporting the referendum bill.  They specifically denied that it barred gay marriage in California, but that it instead only barred California's recognition of other state's gay marriages.  I saw a link that discussed this in detail within the past few days, but can't find it right now.

So all those who say that this bill violates Prop 22 are wrong, at least in the eyes of those who sponsored the referendum.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a left-leaning RS.org lurker from Boston (make with that information what you will :)  I read RS.org as a resource for thoughtful counter-points that I try to consider when confirming my own beliefs (be they politcal, social, etc).

At the risk of being off-topic, I was wondering if someone could explain to me the basis for their opposition to gay marriage.  I often hear the "should-only-be-between-a-man-and-a-woman" argument, but I'm afraid I haven't been able to discover the basis for this belief.  More specifically, I guess I am interested in understanding why it is believed that an establishment of gay marriage is considered so 'detrimental' that it needs to be opposed (I'm not sure that was the best way to phrase that and I hope I am not offending anyone by wording that last sentence as I did, but I think you can understand what I'm trying to ask).

Please believe that my intentions for posting this request are pure and not an attempt to mock, ridicule or trap anyone's opinion on the matter; I am just interested in trying to understand the opposition's point of view.

I absolutely abhor the whole ballot initiative process in general, as in most cases the people do not understand what they are voting for/against nor how it will impact the state in the long term (gay marriage is obviously an exception as it is pretty straight forward, although Ohio's was stupidly designed).

So you think a small group of politicians are smarter than the electorate, less likely to be swayed by other reasons not related the issue at hand, and less corruptable?

That is some beleive you have in government.

I assume you have a simlar view of individuals investing the stock market: they shouldn't and we should let policians determine how our money gets invested.

I'll take my chances with the electorates over those dogs in Washington and Sacramento.

I know you are extremely intelligent, so maybe that is why you fall into the trap thinking that people are generally too dumb to make decisions to govern themselves -- we need guidance from more intelligent people like you to tell the rest of us what is in our own best interests as if we are children.

voters focus only on a single issue and ignore the trade-offs that may be necessary in the overall big picture.

And this isn't a problem with legislators? I want to rip my hair out listening to the junk that passes for debate on C-SPAN. I can't stop thiking how myopic all these people are that represent us. They get something stuck in their head -- like the federal deficit -- and can no longer rationally balance out the worth of a policy. A single billion dollars winds up being too much even though the good it causes is far greater.

That is why democracy works. We can all be myopic tools, but when you weight all of our opinions, you get a preference that does good for a large number of people. Think of each neuron in your brain. Each one only knows about the small world around it and very little of it at that. However, when inputs are given and all the neuron "converse" with each other in their simplistic manner, out comes an intelligent thought.

This is the same beauty in markets. Each investors might be only concerned with a small pieces of information about a company and its competitors, yet all those opinions when aggreagated are extremely efficient at resource allocation and risk diversification.

There is a great story that comes in many forms. A restraunt owner placed a large jar filled with candy near the doorway, and asked people to guess the number of pieces in the jar. The winner will win the jar and its contents. Thousands of people filled out answers, most far from the correct answer. In fact, everybody was consitently off. Howevever, when all those guesses were averaged, the aggregated answer came out to be surprisingly close to the actual one -- often closer than any individual guess. Yes, people are dumb, but democracy  (and her close relative, economic markets) has a great way to dealing with that. (No, this story isn't made up, and you will often hear version dealing with guessing the weight of a pig, bull, or something else.)

Excessive use of ballot initiatives is one reason that CA has become so hamstrung and ungovernable.

That's just flat our assertion. The initiatives that have had the greatest effect on California have been those that were desperately needed because the legislatures were unwilling to do anything about it themselves. Proposition 13 is the canonical example. It capped property taxes, but that was drastically needed. Even my Mother Jones reading, never vote for a Republican relative voted for it, because without it the state would have been in a far worse position.

Nothing says that the legislature cannot go back to the people to ask for a repeal or for changes to modernize the bill and fix flaws that have developed. However that would give power to the people, and of course government officials cannot possible bring themselves to do that.

You don't get to compare some ideal world to the one under Prop 18 and economic mess that state leaders have created. Instead the question needs to be asked, if Prop 13 wasn't allowed to be voted on and rising property taxes were allowed to happen, would CA be in an even worse space. (Lately I've had to deal with some really bad property taxation issues in New Mexico, and without Prop 13, it isn't hard to believe that CA would be closed to NM than NY.)

The state is ungovernable because the government is messed up, not because the people know whats best for them and will vote for it given a chance.

You need reasons to not give them or to take them away. And I can see no reason to not give homosexual couples the same benefits and responsibilities as heterosexual couples.

Two gay guys getting married next door to me doesn't change any my marriage (well if I was married) in any way.

You're the one seeking to change things. It's incumbent on you to give good reasons (and "it won't hurt anyone" is a weak way of saying, "Yeah, so?" and doesn't count) to disrupt the perfectly good if mightily weakened system we have in place.

Good luck.

of scalia's dissent was when he brought up the horror of states no longer being able to outlaw masturbation. oh no!

"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. "

You're the one seeking to change things. It's incumbent on you to give good reasons

Nope. Not at all. I'm not proposing a change that requires any appreciable resources. The government currently has a restriction that doesn't make any sense (unless you think that it is you responsiblity to stick your nose where it doesn't belong -- and the physical, emotion, and legal relationship between other people is definitely where it does not exist). It is restricting the actions of people for no other reason that just to restict them, and the government needs to show that this restriction is in the interest of the state and it citizens.

You are proposing a standard where as long as the government already has a restriction on the books, then it is always judged to be good. A silly restriction might not have any qualifyable impacts precisely because of how silly it is. However the restriction itself is a burden and a net negative, so the presumption should always be on throwing away restrictions that don't have a quantifyable reason to exist.

to disrupt the perfectly good if mightily weakened system we have in place

But the government has to be able to quanity that disruption in order to make laws with such distinctions, or else those distinctions are merely random and prejudiced. And that distruption must be great enough to warrant the prejudice.

Those two gay guys next door to you aren't going to stop having sex in their bed that might be literally 50' from your bed, and the laws preventing marriage don't change that. Given that gay relationships -- emotional and sexual -- are perfectly legal and that many unmarried gay couples already fit the definition of common law spouses, nothing is going to change that. Lifting the pointless restriction on marriage will not change a thing in your marriage or anybody else's.

The standatd you want would be like requiring somebody to show that slavery was bad beyond the obvious prejudice of it, because aparently that isn't enough for you.

You can put an end to all the four sentence diaries that seem to have been posted this afternoon. Diaries should have substance, and if they are only four sentences, the link better be very very good. If your four sentence diary doesn't even have a link, off with your head (and diary priviledges):

http://pottymouth.redstate.org/story/2005/9/7/145439/8190

http://pottymouth.redstate.org/story/2005/9/7/152840/8332

http://pottymouth.redstate.org/story/2005/9/7/16298/33940

http://defiant.redstate.org/story/2005/9/7/161535/6851

http://jsteele.redstate.org/story/2005/9/7/162911/9625

http://mattfenn.redstate.org/story/2005/9/7/172933/6645

http://rantissmo.redstate.org/story/2005/9/7/181454/8409

http://thejeff.redstate.org/story/2005/9/7/18251/20743

http://santiago.redstate.org/story/2005/9/7/123048/0660

Diaries have turned into comments that the authors think are so important that everybody must read them.

You're looking more and more out of touch with that kind of belief.

That's obviously what Scalia was referring to.

Gay marriage is going to be legal one day, whether it be in 10 years or 50 years, it will happen.  So it's a waste of time to fight the legalization.  I have yet to hear anyone articulate the harm of legalizing gay marriage.  It makes the definition of marriage broader, but whats the actual harm in that?

I'm live-and-let-live, personally.

But the best I've been able to understand is that gay marriage is viewed as an assault on the principles of marriage.  It's not that any one couple's marriage will be lessened so much as the intention or meaning of the institution itself might be lessened.

To make an analogy, let's say that the federal government passed a law saying that you couldn't practice Islam.  Practically speaking, that would probably not impact more than a few posters on this site.  But I suspect everyone here would object to the federal government doing that, since it violates the principle of freedom of religion.

This is a sign of moral decay in American culture.  I don't hate gays, but their practice of homosexuality makes me sick.  Why should something like 3% (if anybody can provide some statistics on how many homosexuals are out there, it would be great) of Americans who are gays and lesbians should force their agenda on us?

Sigh...

I'd take it a step farther and say the state should only offer domestic partnerships.  There are legal issues in a marriage (hospital visitation, legal responsibility for children, etc.), and the state can definitely help with those legalities.

Religious (and other) institutions should be the ones endorsing marriages, itself a tradition that is very connected to religion.

This way everyone can get the state partnership benefits, and no one is forced to acknowledge a gay marriage against their will.

I hate mayonnaise.  The thought of someone eating it actually makes me sick.  I try not to think about it.

I think "forcing their agenda on us" is too talkingpointish and lacks substance.  Gays are not actually forcing you, personnally, to do anything.  I believe the religious tradition argument works better.  Few want to force the Church to perform marriages that go against their faith and traditions.

I believe the problem originated when the state started performing civil marriages.  They should have called them "unions" or "contracts" from the beginning.  That way gay couples would have all the legal rights they want, and churches would get to preserve their traditions.  Most gays I know aren't particularly enthusiastic about getting "married" anyway.

The people of California spoke in 2000, we voted for proposition 22.

Now comes the Legislature and it has overruled the direct and clear will of the people and legislating  over the will of the people something called gay marriage. This is clearly voter nullification. So why are we bothering to vote for any proposition, the legislature will go ahead and do what they want to do, ignoring the people of the state of California.

Note to the Governator:  Veto this bill or your entire slate will go down, why should be vote for something if you will allow the Legislature to overturn our votes?

I am so angry, not because of gay marriage, could care less, I am angry because of voter nullification.

Many in America feel that equality that doesn't discriminate is in general a good thing.  The benefits of this are always more obvious to the people who were being discriminated against.

Mixed race marriage, for instance, was probably most condoned and accepted by couples who were mixed race.  Other people might not have seen the benefit so clearly.

But I think in principle that the state should treat law abiding citizens generally equally when it comes to benefits offered.  I believe it leads to a more cohesive union and contributes to the universal goal of live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Re: That is why democracy works.

It is also why the Founders had a horror of direct democracy ("Mobocracy" to use their word). But perhaps they also were too smart for their own good.

Re: The initiatives that have had the greatest effect on California have been those that were desperately needed because the legislatures were unwilling to do anything about it themselves. Proposition 13 is the canonical example.

I am not against all ballot initiatives, only against their excessive use ("nothing in excess" is pretty close to a motto with me). You are correct that there are cases where the legislators need a good swift kick in the pants. However I don't believe that we should have direct government by initiative, and I think the bar for getting such things on the ballot ought be pretty high, and, if they involve amneding a state constitution, they ought require a 2/3 majority vote. One of the great sources of political stability at the federal level of this country has been the fact that our Constitution is very hard to amend, so we can't tinker with it to suit every pasing political fancy.

to commit sodomy in public. Or any kind of sexual act, even between husband and wife. Nothing in the Lawrence decision speaks to laws against public lewdness.

The belief marriage is between a man and a woman? If that's out of touch, fine by me. I don't shape my opinions based on PC.

Believe me or not, I have actually changed my beliefs a great deal. I used to think gays were all promiscuous drug-takers, I used to think gay people should not be allowed to raise children. I've changed my mind as I have seen evidence to the contrary. I still think marriage is between a man and a woman, and I would imagine many homosexuals do not care about the word 'marriage' - it is only a select group of liberals who need that kind of validation, and they are dragging the rest of their community down with them. Every time they call marriage advocates 'bigots' or 'Nazis', or say that they are just like Rosa Parks, they alienate more Americans who do support some limited form of rights for homosexual relationships.

the Virginia law states

... that a civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited and that such an arrangement entered into in another state or jurisdiction is void in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby are void and unenforceable.

How cruelly or liberally the Virginian courts interprets that bold part has yet to be seen. Like I said, it's alarmingly ambiguous. Even the Washington Post blasted it for being so.

As for the right to share property, I would respectfully submit that you don't understand Virginia law well enough to make that assertion, although your ability to lift out of context and distort meanings is quite admirable.

Did you read the link? I'm hardly inventing this. Jonathan Rauch, a rather respected mind, is the one making the argument you're dismissing as out of context and distorted, not me. You're right to admire him, but not to describe his take on this in those terms. Or, as Aleks311 notes:

in the wrong hands that could easily be used to nullify busniess contracts between people of the same sex

I told an acquaintance last week that a ban on gay adoption would probably have popular support, and she mentioned some Gallup or Washington Post poll from 2003 that said otherwise. Do you know if there have been any other polls which show support? I know there have been a few, but I can't remember any of the names or the years they were released.

That would be an interesting issue to poll, whether people have higher opposition to homosexual marriage or adoption. I do think that some homosexuals can be adequate parents, but only if the children have been turned down by heterosexual couples or single parents first.

The people who actually have a stake in it? Their will is to be entitled to marry.

The will of the people who fear or hate the people who actually have a stake in it?  Honestly, I don't see why their will should take precedence since it doesn't affect them in the least.  Even if they happen to be in a majority currently.

Do you mean the recent western conseption of marriage as an equal partnership based on love, the slightly older idea of marriage as a partnership based on the transer of property (ie woman), or the biblical tradition of polygamy?  Our founding believed in one man one woman marriage, (save for Thomas Jefferson who had a bit of a hankering for young slaves,) but the women couldn't vote.  Our biblical forfathers all had multiple wives.

You're conception of what marriage is today is not what it was 200, 100, or even 50 years ago.  Times change.  Deal with it.

97% of us like mayonnaise. It's anchovies that should be outlawed. Makes me sick to think about it. Moral decay is what it is.

Most gays I know aren't particularly enthusiastic about getting "married" anyway.

Wonder why that is, in a culture where marriage has always been by, for, and about straights? It's of major social importance in the U.S. to build institutions which encourage monogamy and foster strong families... it's the most important thing in the world to the "Pro-Family" group... until you want to include gays.  Suddently "pro-" turns into violently and hatefully "anti-"...

Fact is, it ain't "family" they are in love with - they can  sing the praises of "family" or outlaw it with equal vigor... It's themselves and their pretty little holier-than-thou ideas about morality that they are in love with.

give a list of examples of Democrats who have made comments against homosexual practices or homosexuals in the military, and so on. Robert Byrd, Sam Nunn. Al Gore voted to uphold sodomy laws at one time in his career. I would venture to guess many Democrats feel the same way about homosexual marriage as Sen. Cornyn.

I don't begrude a homosexual who feels anger toward a Republican as long as they remain civil. They have a right to their opinion. They also have a right to stop acting like victims. I personally have come to believe that their leaders want to be victimized. They enjoy ranting against Bush, raging at people who helped them like John Roberts, because that lines their pockets.

If what these groups say is true and there are tens of millions of homosexuals, then they can all register to vote. Imagine what would happen if all the homosexuals of voting age in (let's say) Florida voted in Republican primaries for governor or for Senate. They would have a major influence over who runs their state. Instead they are content to blindly support a party that has done little or nothing for them.

That is my biggest objection to Arnold, I have no idea where he stands. I have heard he doesn't care about gay marriage, and that he opposes gay marriage. He said let the people decide, but the statement is so vague many could think he meant the representatives elected by the people.

For a state that is supposed to be so liberal, 58% for stem cell research is not very high.

I think there is a large untapped portion of socially conservative voters who are not inspired by him. He may think running against homosexual marriage will bring them to the polls. It's not for me to say whether he is right or wrong. All I can say is hiding behind divisiveness was what helped cripple the California Republican Party after Pete Wilson's 1994 reelection, and Arnold should take a look at Wilson's political career if he wonders what happens to those who govern as a liberal and yet run hard to the right just in time for an election year. They demoralize and alienate the base and lead to the corrupt Democrats controlling everything.

How is the legislature voting to make gay marriage legal after an initiative made it illegal any different from the legislature changing its mind on an issue, or the voters repealing an initative through another initative? Just because the medium of expression of voters' will changed doesn't mean it's any less valid. To say so is to say that direct democracy is somehow superior, or more accurate, than representative democracy, and I don't think that can be proven.

and it takes some doing. Why not just let Arnie make all the decisions? He was elected to a higher office than the legislative offices. Your rationale is absolutley amazing.

I would not be so hard on Arnold if the media had not spent 2003 and 2004 chiding Republicans who were pro-life, or pro-2nd Amendment for not being his spitting image. He hyped himself to the highest degree and now he is running back to the base when the rest of the state has had enough flirtation.

Sorry that you had to resort to name-calling. I didn't say anything about "higher offices." I don't really know where you got that. All I said is that direct democracy and representative democracy are equally valid forms of lawmaking in today's America.

have some one read it to you.

That's what I meant. Sorry if you misunderstood. Next?

...yawn...

The thing about ballot measures is that those most likely to know what they are and vote on them are activists. Proposition 22 wasn't "the will of the people"... it was the will of the people who wanted to vote specifically on the issue of gay marriage and were willing to go out of their way to do it.  Fact is, that group included a boatload of anti-gay activists and the majority of gay people and their most committed advocates, not "the people" per se. So the people who had no stake in the law but wanted to bring their heel down on gays to make themselves feel righteous were more numerous than the people they wanted to step on for that particular ballot measure.  As someone mentioned upthread, the population of the state as a whole is split about 46/46 on the issue.

If you're going to sample only a subset of that group, why not let it be the ones who's lives are actually affected?

This bill represents a big middle finger to the clear majority of Californians (which obviously includes a lot of democrats and indpendants) who voted to protect marriage, and is another in a long line of examples of why its high time that we pass redistricting reform, which we will in November throught the initiative process!

In California the districts are so gerrymandered that while technically representative government exists, it isn't a case of the voters picking the politicians so much as it is the politicians picking the voters. Because of the gerrymandered district, the representatives are much further to the left than the overall population. There's no way this bill would pass if the legislators were actually worried about what the voters actually thought. How is that represntative?

And the process was open so that any legally eligible voter who chose to vote could do so which makes it as much the "will of the people" as any election.

You don't get to cry "foul" just because people you think would agree with you don't seem show up to vote accordingly.

And the process was open so that any legally eligible voter who chose to vote could do so

If they happened to know the first thing about the proposition, that is.

which makes it as much the "will of the people" as any election

Nah... it makes it potentially representative of the "will of the people" as much as any election... however, major elections where the candidates or issues are well known do provide a more accurate representation of the "will of the people".

You don't get to cry "foul" just because people you think would agree with you don't seem show up to vote accordingly.

It ain't because people I think would agree with me don't seem to show up to vote accordingly. It's   because the nature of a ballot iniative is to sample the more extreme viewpoints, not the "will of the people".

Of course, in cases like this, where what is being  decided is whether all citizens will enjoy equal protection under the law, the ballot shouldn't have anything to do with it.  There will always be a majority that wants to be "more equal" than some minority. That's the reason we have a constitution and courts... because the majority can only be trusted to look out for their own interests, not to look out for the interests of "the people."

Governor to Veto Gay Marriage bill.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/07/D8CFOOIO1.html

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/9/7/13465/49592/52#52

who voted to protect marriage

... Protect marriage by preventing people from having them. What a plan. Like I said in an earlier comment - some folks will outlaw marriage just as quickly as they will sing its praises.  It ain't family they care about. It is their own fragile sense of moral superiority.

by those who run and get the most votes. We elect representatives who are qualified to examine the bills before them and make well-considered, well-informed decisions...that's their profession.

If we're unhappy with their decisions, we can vote them out.

What's gonna happen when the California courts declare Prop 22 unconstitutional? What part of the system will you demonize next? The activist judges? The activist legislature? And when it's no longer 62 percent who oppose it, but only 49? The activist voters? That time is coming. You know it is.

Those who continue to fight against advancing human rights for gays will be judged most harshly by their children and their children's children. It's morally indefensible to relegate a segment of the population to second-class citizen status out of fear or ignorance. The younger generations see that very clearly (demographics breakdowns on the polls prove it, anti-gay sentiment is a bias whose time is passing). Take a moment and consider that your children are right about this. Don't be on the wrong side of history on this one. It's being demonstrated in Massachusetts that the sky is not falling. The only thing happening there is that more Americans are able to better strive for their dreams and protect their families.

But I'll take direction on how to be useful from you the day you show yourself to have any use.

I also appreciate your insight into who should and should not have posting privileges. Suffice it to say I've filed it right next to your thoughts on Erick's posting privileges.

Nope. Not at all. I'm not proposing a change that requires any appreciable resources. The government currently has a restriction that doesn't make any sense (unless you think that it is you responsiblity to stick your nose where it doesn't belong -- and the physical, emotion, and legal relationship between other people is definitely where it does not exist).

Or, perhaps, because

(1) Marriage must have a definite meaning, or it means nothing;

(2) Public acts have private consequences; and

(3) A legally enforceable relationship is by definition something into which the public sticks its nose.

Stick to economics, kid.

You are proposing a standard where as long as the government already has a restriction on the books, then it is always judged to be good. A silly restriction might not have any qualifyable impacts precisely because of how silly it is. However the restriction itself is a burden and a net negative, so the presumption should always be on throwing away restrictions that don't have a quantifyable reason to exist.

To the contrary: I'm proposing that, absent some rational, without stupid appeals to emotion showing that government or society is effecting a grave ill -- or, if you'd prefer, running costs in excess of benefits -- we don't go messing with the Law of Unintended Consequences. Which is what I was suggesting above, but you're so emotionally invested, you're not paying attention.

But the government has to be able to quanity that disruption in order to make laws with such distinctions, or else those distinctions are merely random and prejudiced. And that distruption must be great enough to warrant the prejudice.

See "Or, perhaps..." above.

Those two gay guys next door to you aren't going to stop having sex in their bed that might be literally 50' from your bed, and the laws preventing marriage don't change that.

Your grasp of the obvious is phenomenal.

Given that gay relationships -- emotional and sexual -- are perfectly legal and that many unmarried gay couples already fit the definition of common law spouses, nothing is going to change that.

Ditto. You're on a roll.

Lifting the pointless restriction on marriage will not change a thing in your marriage or anybody else's.

Never said it did. Pay attention, and don't argue with someone else.

The standatd you want would be like requiring somebody to show that slavery was bad beyond the obvious prejudice of it, because aparently that isn't enough for you.

Well, silly-head that I am, the "owning of another human being," the "dehumanizing brutality," and the "degradation of other humans, physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and sexually," seem significantly more important than mere prejudice. Nice to know where you fall out on this.

the Virginia law states

And you didn't read, oh, say:

As for the right to share property, I would respectfully submit that you don't understand Virginia law well enough to make that assertion, although your ability to lift out of context and distort meanings is quite admirable.

As for shared custody, I see nothing about marriage or civil union. Can you point me to that part of Virginia's code or common law?

Now, I know this is hard, but I do have to give you points for paying attention to 1980s public service announcements. Once again, you have misconstrued the statute -- I would humbly suggest due to the emotional investment you and Rauch share -- in order to dream up a worst case scenario with no basis in the rest of Virginia's law (which, it may surprise you, is larger than this single statute).

Try again.

How cruelly or liberally the Virginian courts interprets that bold part has yet to be seen. Like I said, it's alarmingly ambiguous. Even the Washington Post blasted it for being so.

Oh, even the Washington Post. Well, then. Surely they have no ideological dog in this fight.

I know back at ObiWi y'all are convinced that anyone to the right of The Nation is a Bush crony, but seriously. That's like saying, Even the New York Times decried the men-only policy at Augusta National.

Did you read the link? I'm hardly inventing this. Jonathan Rauch, a rather respected mind, is the one making the argument you're dismissing as out of context and distorted, not me.

Actually, you were grafting his argument as your own.

By the way, given the entirely neutral title of the article, and given his broad, sweeping, never bothering to actually cite to any other portion of Virginia law screed, I'm entirely in my rights to decry his little foray into agitprop as distorted and out of context.

He missed the part where we round up all gays and stick them in concentration camps. And make them drink at separate water fountains.

You're right to admire him, but not to describe his take on this in those terms.

Actually, given his completely hysterical appeal to emotion instead of reason (or, you know, "the law"), I'm right to think he's a braying cretin, and to describe his take exactly that way.

Or, as Aleks311 notes:...

Aleks is neither a lawyer, nor an expert on Virginia law, nor, and this is important so pay attention, right.

I'm still waiting.

or expert in Virginia law Thomas?

I'm -- and this is a difficult skill to master -- capable of finding huge repositories of Virginia law on a device called "the Internet." You're even using it now. Invoke the power of The Google and see what it can do for you.

There are Virginia lawyers on the editorial staff. I'm just an out-of-state lawyer with a soft spot for that State. (Sorry: Commonwealth.)

More here.

I guess the inevitable hand of history will have to wait.

capable of finding huge repositories of Virginia law on a device called "the Internet."

Because the way you merely insinuated that other Virginian laws would protect gays from some overzealous judge from interpreting that shamelessly ambiguous law in ways that could easily impact their lives for far too long before an appeal, rather than employ that huge repository to prove it yourself, I had assumed that you were either blowing smoke or extremely lazy. As it turns out, you're arguably doing both.

I'm offering what Rauch and others have suggested is a pitfall of the law. What the Virginia legislature considered and rejected the need to qualify, despite pleas from their own freakin' anti-gay marraige governor to soften the law, and last minute efforts by other lawmakers to clarify, in what can only be interpreted as negligence or actual hostility.

You on the other hand are offering sneers and little else.

Arnolds the worst kind of "girly man" imaginable. He won't even stand up for his own convictions.

Thank God!  This counter-intuitive, rear-end (i'm not going to risk using the profanity!) backwards policy has been staved off yet again.  Kudos, Arnold.

Because the way you merely insinuated that other Virginian laws would protect gays from some overzealous judge from interpreting that shamelessly ambiguous law in ways that could easily impact their lives for far too long before an appeal, rather than employ that huge repository to prove it yourself, I had assumed that you were either blowing smoke or extremely lazy. As it turns out, you're arguably doing both.

Actually, what I'm saying is that you don't understand the law, either the one you cite to or the more general law, well enough to make these sweeping fainting spell rants. In other words, you're either dense or dishonest or both. To be more specific, a brother-sister marriage is void in Virginia, even if legally entered into in another State. Can they contract? If so, why? If not, why not? (Hint: It's not "if not.")

I'm offering what Rauch and others have suggested is a pitfall of the law.

No, you're regurgitating a screed without understanding it, and without understanding its flaws. There's a difference.

I actually spent some serious time with Virginia law, once. However, as you're the one tossing around the ridiculous canard that this misconstrued statute violates the well established common law of one of the most die-hard property-rights States in the Union, it's incumbent on you to walk the walk. It's not my job to do your legal research for you, unless you want to pay me. Just for you, $425 an hour.

What the Virginia legislature considered and rejected the need to qualify, despite pleas from their own freakin' anti-gay marraige governor to soften the law, and last minute efforts by other lawmakers to clarify, in what can only be interpreted as negligence or actual hostility.

Or, alternatively, assuming I understood that sentence fragment correctly, they disagreed in good faith.

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to either ignorance or incomplete information. It's why I find you funny rather than offensive.

You on the other hand are offering sneers and little else.

Well, as soon as you say something well-reasoned or well-sourced (or both!), I'll be happy to change that.

You're suggesting I'm wrong simply because you feel you're better informed. If that's the sort of logic my money would buy, I'd rather get it with the stick of bubble gum it normally comes with.

"I know I'm right, but there's no way I can prove it. No one can, but it's still right. And you're stupid for not seeing it."

Come back here when you have any sort of, you know, rational arguments, citations of law, coherent sentences, or even telling points to make in this debate.

I'll even make you a promise: I'll match you citation for citation. (A "citation" is a reference, usually made at the end of a sentence, that indicates the legal authority upon which one predicates one's argument. Thus, Thomas v. Edward, 983 So.2d 220 (Fla., 2005), cert denied, 987 U.S. 1 (2006). There are even special words and abbreviations used to indicate the extent and nature of the reliance on authority, but we'll save that for your next lesson.)

If he had taken a consistent position on this issue long ago, there's a good chance the legislature would have been too scared to pass the bill. Now, after over a year of mixed messages, he vetoes because he absolutely cannot afford to do otherwise, and he tells us to wait for the courts. Just what we need, courts telling us what to do again.

I think the voters will ban these marriages next year anyway, so all the maneuvering on both sides is probably moot.

Governor of California is yielding to the will of the people...

Arnold has come out in the past in support of gay rights - he especially made this clear during the recall campaign over Gray Davis.  Let me be clear - He did NOT support gay marriage in full, but rather domestic partnerships.  Here's why I think he's a girlie man for vetoing the bill anyway:

That position is a distinction without a difference, except you put a different label on it.  Let's face it - you're either granting gays the same rights as everyone else, or you're not.  The fact that someone decides to call it "not marriage" just highlights the desire to hide behind labels for political cover, and obfuscates the real issue - drawing a line around a group of citizens and telling them they don't have access to certain rights.

For my money, then, he's hiding when he vetoes it with the excuse that the courts are the venue for it and it is the "will of the people".  That's what we pay leaders for - to lead.  He's not leading, he's running from taking a position on the issue.  Someone in comments said they hated the ballot initiaitve process - I couldn't agree more.  It punts the difficult decisions of budgets and governance to the general population when legislators can't or won't deal with issues such as this.

For the record, I support gay marriage in full.  One of my best friends, several of my colleagues and my rabbi are all gay and how can I tell them they are not entitled to the same rights my wife and I are.  These are my friends and my fellow Americans.  We should stand together instead of tearing each other down.  I must admit this whole thing makes me ill.

Looks like Governor Schwarzenegger meant it when he said that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Funny how that seems to confuse some people.

I think gays would be insulted by you implying that they need the government to endorse their relationships.

I don't think the government should pay for and endorse nonmarital relationships such as gay, more than one spouse, etc.  The government should continue to be neutral on gay relationships - neither endrose nor prevent them.  

The government should encourage and endorse marriage to help encourage babies born to stable homes, with a mother and father.

I gave reasons why you would opt to throw away restrictions, because of their restraining characteristic, and the best you can come up with is the "but that's the way it is" defense. Weak.

(1) Marriage must have a definite meaning, or it means nothing;

But its legal definition comes from everything behind it, not from it being a man and a woman. There is nothing about marriage requiring procreation, and that is the only hetero difference.

It would be as if cars traditionally had 4-doors, so the streets are filled with 4-door 4-wheel vehicles. One day somebody decides to to make a 2-door car, and your objection would be that car would no longer have a "definite meaning" and now mean "nothing" simply based on the 4-door/2-door distinction, a distiction that doesn't change the basics the car, only appearance and some minor design and operational changes.

In your Christianized verion of marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are hugely important, but America a secular state, and the First Amendment doesn't just prohibit the institution of a national church, but also a crypto church created through laws but just not called one.

Unless you want to start requiring procreation for marriage, this argument is a deadend.

(2) Public acts have private consequences

And this is supposed to mean something to me?

(3) A legally enforceable relationship is by definition something into which the public sticks its nose.

Not even close. We generally refer to things such as freedom of contract, and we recognize that the government should generally keep their noses our of contract between two private individuals. Beyond that, we generally think that the government has to have a good reason to get involved that has to be quantifyable or have some standard to judge its intrusion by. Merely saying, "We don't think so," isn't sufficient.

To the contrary: I'm proposing that, absent some rational, without stupid appeals to emotion showing that government or society is effecting a grave ill -- or, if you'd prefer, running costs in excess of benefits -- we don't go messing with the Law of Unintended Consequences. Which is what I was suggesting above, but you're so emotionally invested, you're not paying attention.

So now you've pushed the standard up. The government can be messing things up with a law or restriction, and it can be as prejudiced as it wants, but as long as it isn't creating a "grave ill" then govt has full power to do what it wants. What kind of conservative are you?

Your answer only begs the question anyways, assuming that not allowing homosexual marriage isn't already a grave ill when it clearly is because it prevents two people from getting married with no compelling state reason behind it, except your assertion that its bad.

It would be more fun to argue with you if at some point you actually gave a reason for not allowing gay marriage besides that you just don't like it. Give me some meat.

You essentially have no reason except for this "Law of Unintended Consequences" argument that begs the question and hence has no logical response. By that Law, we should do very little because of all the possible consequenece that we both know and don't know of. This isn't a response, just rhetoric.

You've in a very rough position right now. And you have two alternatives:

(1) If many of the incidents of marriage are already avaliable to gays though powers of attorney, wills, private contracts, and the many private companies already offering domestic partner benefit, then we would no longer be messing with the "Law of Unintended Consequences", since we already know them, and your argument is exploded from that side.

(2) If these incidents are not already available, then there are real problems -- hospital visitation rights, passing on of wealth, etc -- that are not being address and the presumption no longer lies with the govt since their policy is causing these problems. And we would rather fix these definite and substantial ills over some nebulous, unquantifyable claim that there might be something wrong in the future.

Either way, your reasoning is terrible.

he's said gay marriage was fine with him. He said the courts or the public should decide. I don't think Democrats have a leg to stand on when they argue for homosexual marriage, but I do think Arnold gave them an opening by not being firm and consistent. I don't support homosexual marriage and I'm confused as all get out by what he has said. I think he wants to look liberal for his Hollywood friends and then wants to look different when he has to face a big reelection battle.

However, if by running back to the base you mean trying to appeal to the most socially conservative elements in the party, then I guess I'd have to go back to my original assertion and you can stick a fork in him--figuratively speaking, of course.  This being the case if we consider recent history as so eloquently summarized by others on this thread.

It is also why the Founders had a horror of direct democracy ("Mobocracy" to use their word). But perhaps they also were too smart for their own good.

You cannot just appeal to the founders as if they were secular saints. They can be wrong, and have been wrong, especially it seems when it came to who should vote.

Any problems with that dumb mob are only exaggerated with a small group that holds control. There, it only takes one person to mess up, but with a proposition it takes millions. You, as an Orthdox, should be fully aware of how this works. Bribing those millions is going to be far more difficult than a free vacation to Hawaii for a couple representatives. Individuals just aren't smart enough to weigh everything and look into everybody's thoughts, so they need the help of the electorate, especially on contentious issues. I get really annoyed when people want their CAstate rep to stand up for something and vote against the electorate. It is just a power grab. Your policy fail in the marketplace of ideas, so instead try to subvert the will of the people, because of course, these people always think they are smarter than the electorate. It is never the case though.

One of the great sources of political stability at the federal level of this country has been the fact that our Constitution is very hard to amend, so we can't tinker with it to suit every pasing political fancy.

The Constitution does two things different from laws though:

(1) It delineates ares that we don't think should be open to the current majoritarian electorate. It creates the bounds for democracy, where even if the state as a whole is benefited, the loss to the individual should trump. This is a good reason why you might not want to allow a constitutional amendment that overturns another (although adding wouldn't violate that starndard).

(2) It establishes a weak form of democray through time. It allows those that came before us to have their say, and make it harder for the current majority to overturn since we need to remember the opinions of those that came before us. This is a good reason to keep a constitution limited to issues of rights, and not temporal policy decisions.

But two-thirds is just the wrong idea. Nothing would get passed. A 60% or 55% margin would not make sense either since you are just drawing an arbitrary line. These votes don't just create change, but also work to reverse change that the legislature has made. They can be a force of inertia as well as a force of motion. I can see an argument about making the requirement 51% to make sure it just isn't some error signal turning a narrow loss into a narrow win. That would made sure it was something the people really wanted.

But it doesn't make your post any better.  I'm one of those real-life gays and I'm not insulted by those calling for the government to endorse our relationships.  I'm insulted by the government deciding that our relationships aren't worthy of endorsement.  I'm going to have kids in a gay relationship whether anyone likes it or not, and my children will deserve the same support from the government that every other family gets.

There is this notion in economics called revealed preferences. People often (very often) say one thing and do another, most of the time without even knowing it.

People may have a stated preference for gay marriage, but if they don't show up and vote for it, then that means they don't really have that preferenece. Preferences that aren't revealed aren't preferences at all, just words.

This is the biggest difference between polls and voting. A poll is highly suseptible to a number of problems, such as this preference dichotomy and also something called signaling, where somebody says one thing, but really wants something else.

It's like the person who things that Microsoft stock will, he says, with 100% certainly be at $100 by the end of the year. If he doesn't actually buy the stock, then clearly he doesn't really believe it, but is just saying it.

Voting determines the will of the people far better than any poll could possibly do it.

Maybe some are just not ready for gay marrige yet, and trying to force it on them will only backfire. Maybe civil unions can be supported now, and in five or ten years that can be moved up to marriage.

you are a very selfish person, and will feel very sorry for your children, just as i feel sorry for children growing up in single-parent homes without a mother or father. what a pity...  i live with 2 other roommates of the same sex, maybe the government should endorse our relationship and give us special status because we like to hangout together, what do you think?  

do you support marriage for other sexual preferences, like multiple spouses or amongst immediate family members?  i hope you are consistent and don't discriminate based on sexual orientation, brtsp.

I don't care if you feel sorry for them, because they are going to be raised damn well.

Being attracted to a sibling or having multiple spouses are sexual orientations?  News to me.

sexual preferences.  your kids will not be raised "damn well" without a mother or father in the household.  you didn't answer which other sexual preferences and choices you support including in marriage...

of this argument always ignores or dismisses the reason I gave in my first post. ITS A MANY MILLENNIA OLD TRADITION THAT MEANS A LOT TO MANY PEOPLE.

  That's good enough reason not to change it. (granted that rights are extended through domestic partnerships)

A small minority forcing their opinions onto the majority is tyranny.

Re: You cannot just appeal to the founders as if they were secular saints.

Yes, the Founders were wrong about a few things. Does that mean they were wrong about everything? I don't think so. And when it comes to direct democracy I believe that they were far more right than wrong. Sorry, but I'm with Hamilton on this one: The people are a great beast. and to turn your point around, if a single leader is wrong he can be sent packing fairly easily. If the people as a whole are wrong, what remedy then is there?

Re: , as an Orthdox, should be fully aware of how this works.

Huh? Last time I checked my Church does not function as any kind of democracy. In fact, we're approximately a sort of constituitional monarchy: Christ is King, and his ministers are the Church hierarchs who govern the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Sure, we laity are the Church too, and our opinions are not irrelevant (in fact we have a sort of veto that is more or less the equivalent of jury nullification in civil law), but the church leaders most certainly do not hold referrenda among the faithful to determine matter of faith or even matters of practical governance.

I gave reasons why you would opt to throw away restrictions, because of their restraining characteristic, and the best you can come up with is the "but that's the way it is" defense. Weak.

Proving, dispositively, that you can neither write nor read. You would abolish restrictions because they're restraining? There's some profound logic.

Actually, given your writings on the topic to date, that's a significant improvement.

But its legal definition comes from everything behind it, not from it being a man and a woman. There is nothing about marriage requiring procreation, and that is the only hetero difference.

Did I say something about procreation? I just re-read what I wrote.

Look, I know you have trouble with reading, but try to only respond to one argument at a time. It'll make things easier.

It would be as if cars traditionally had 4-doors, so the streets are filled with 4-door 4-wheel vehicles. One day somebody decides to to make a 2-door car, and your objection would be that car would no longer have a "definite meaning" and now mean "nothing" simply based on the 4-door/2-door distinction, a distiction that doesn't change the basics the car, only appearance and some minor design and operational changes.

Actually, the better analogy is if cars always had internal combustion engines, steering mechanisms, and wheels, and you insist on putting a vehicle on the street with no steering mechanisms, blocks instead of wheels, and jet engines on the rear, and calling it a "car." It would still carry people back and forth, but it wouldn't really be a car, and there may just be some unintended consequences there.

In your Christianized verion of marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are hugely important, but America a secular state, and the First Amendment doesn't just prohibit the institution of a national church, but also a crypto church created through laws but just not called one.

Your stunningly inaccurate reading of the First Amendment to the side, I'd note that I said nothing about Christ or Christianity. But, like I said, it's not as if you're actually reading anyway, so this is probably a waste of time.

And this is supposed to mean something to me?

No. That's why when I show up at your house, sneak in, and shoot you in the head with a silenced pistol, you'll make not a peep of protest, because it will be done in private.

Not even close. We generally refer to things such as freedom of contract, and we recognize that the government should generally keep their noses our of contract between two private individuals. Beyond that, we generally think that the government has to have a good reason to get involved that has to be quantifyable or have some standard to judge its intrusion by. Merely saying, "We don't think so," isn't sufficient.

Like I said, you really should stick to economics. A contract is private law between the parties, that is necessarily enforceable in a court of law. Without that backbone, no one would enter or remain in contracts, because there is no enforcement mechanism other than happy good will. Oh, and, again, this is where some knowledge of the law is useful, we use "we don't think so" all the time as our rationale in voiding or construing contracts. Google "contra preferentiam."

So now you've pushed the standard up. The government can be messing things up with a law or restriction, and it can be as prejudiced as it wants, but as long as it isn't creating a "grave ill" then govt has full power to do what it wants. What kind of conservative are you?

One who:

(1) Knows that government is not an ill, and not a good, but is rather that thing that humans do when they get together in groups;

(2) Knows that when one enters society, one necessarily gives up some rights for the benefits of society;

(3) Knows that there is such a thing as the Law of Unintended Consequences;

(4) Knows that messing around with thousands-of-years-old institutions out of some political fad a decade old is a good way to watch a lot of walls come crumbling down; and

(5) Has seen the effects of so doing, and would rather not give it another go, thanks.

Your answer only begs the question anyways, assuming that not allowing homosexual marriage isn't already a grave ill when it clearly is because it prevents two people from getting married with no compelling state reason behind it, except your assertion that its bad.

Irony is a harsh mistress, eh?

If you're going to castigate me incorrectly for circular logic, it might behoove you not to employ circular logic in your attack.

It would be more fun to argue with you if at some point you actually gave a reason for not allowing gay marriage besides that you just don't like it. Give me some meat.

This doubtless won't satisfy you, but I already have. We mess with the building blocks of civilization at our peril. Maybe everything will turn out just hunky-dorey. Or maybe a lot of things we'll take for granted will suddenly change.

My problem with gay "marriage" is essentially that, based on ten years of argument from a statistically tiny group of committed activists, we're looking at fundamentally changing the nature of the marriage laws that have, either as a formal expression of law or as an informal social expression, provided social cohesion and structure for thousands of years.

My corollary problem is that these activists cannot, for their lives, articulate any meaningful harm they're suffering from the law as written, except to say that they can't go before a justice of the peace and have their union blessed. What they're really saying, though they're smart enough not to say it, is that they see this as a way to bootstrap social acceptance through legal fiat; that if enough gay marriages happen, people will think homosexuality is just A-OK. That's not what the law is for, and a conservative or libertarian should know better.

My other corollary problem, which you'll dismiss out of hand (not that this bothers me, given that you're apparently incapable of arguing your way out of a wet paper bag on this or any other social issue), is that in good faith, if marriage must necessarily be expanded to include gay couples, then there is no logical reason for most of the restrictions we place on marriage. If I must accept gay marriage, then I must accept polygamy. Why not? It's merely a change in number, rather than type, as gay marriage is. Why not brother-sister marriages? Don't they love each other? Don't even hand me any eugenicist garbage about their offspring; if we're looking at likely offspring of potential married couples, a lot of folks are going to find their marriage applications scrutinized.

Your argument is either dishonest or remarkably naive. I'd rather not take a test run and find out which it is, thanks.

You essentially have no reason except for this "Law of Unintended Consequences" argument that begs the question and hence has no logical response. By that Law, we should do very little because of all the possible consequenece that we both know and don't know of. This isn't a response, just rhetoric.

Actually, it's based on something conservatives understand: Don't mess with something unless you're more certain than not that the consequences will be more benefit than harm. I don't expect libertarians to get this, living as they do in a fantasy land, but the history of Messing With Old Things Because We Just Rethought Them is littered with graves and the wreckage of human lives.

(1) If many of the incidents of marriage are already avaliable to gays though powers of attorney, wills, private contracts, and the many private companies already offering domestic partner benefit, then we would no longer be messing with the "Law of Unintended Consequences", since we already know them, and your argument is exploded from that side.

Like I said, stick to economics. There is more to marriage and its social import than mere accretion of rights and arrangements.

I would expect a conservative or even, perhaps, a libertarian to understand that.

If these incidents are not already available, then there are real problems -- hospital visitation rights, passing on of wealth, etc -- that are not being address and the presumption no longer lies with the govt since their policy is causing these problems. And we would rather fix these definite and substantial ills over some nebulous, unquantifyable claim that there might be something wrong in the future.

Those are real problems? Perhaps. But to how many? And at what cost to society?

See, those are the questions you can't answer -- or if you do, it'll come from your fantasy world where one set of acts has no effects on the rest of society.

You already know what I think about your reasoning. Well, given your apparent reading skills, you might not, but have someone explain it to you.

I'm done with this. I see no point in arguing with someone who can't read, can't reason, and is working with a fantastic version of reality in the first place.

You just keep making that strange assertion that people need to be controlled for their own good, when it is individuals who are more likely to be wrong. And we see this over and over in free markets. If you were right, the free markets and democracy would be terrible. We would rather appoint somebody to distribute resource across the economy, and we would rather developed a technocracy instread of letting the dirty croues vote and ruin things. You have way too much trust in intelligence. The lack of respect for democracy is very distrubring.

And the description of Orthodox democracy is not mine. It is Fredericka Matthewes-Green who called ir "democracy through time." And that single description is what attracted me to read more. Her point (and mine) is that individuals leaders (President or Pope) tend to be wrong more often than the large group of followers. Allowing power to rest in the group and not concentrated in any single person or small group of people is paradoxically more stable. And just last week I read a similar description of the Constitution, and it was mindblowing in the connection between that could be seen.

just as i feel sorry for children growing up in single-parent homes without a mother or father. what a pity

Are aliens raising the child?  

between "or" and "and".

Re: You just keep making that strange assertion that people need to be controlled for their own good

??

Where have I used the word control? I am simply affirming the wisdom of millennia here: that direct democracy at any level larger than a village where everybody knows everybody is not a workable system of government. It didn't even work that well in ancient Athens (See: Peloponessian wars, Sokrates' execution, Aristotle's exile, etc.)

Re: And the description of Orthodox democracy is not mine. It is Fredericka Matthewes-Green

The lady is a favorite author of mine toop, but if she called the Churtch a democracy then she was suffering a momentary brain event. The Church is not a democracy.

Re: Allowing power to rest in the group and not concentrated in any single person or small group of people is paradoxically more stable.

Yes, and under a constitutional republic power is not inherent to a small group (that would describe an oligarchy). It inheres in the people, who then delegate it to representatives to use it for purposes the people desire.

You can have the last word after this post.

Where have I used the word control?

It's implied. The ppl say they want to do this, and when a leader, even if elected, decides that the ppl should not be allowed to do this, but in his high opinion should do that instead, he is exrecizing control over the population. Your advocating paternalism, and you can't serious say that isn't controlling.

I am simply affirming the wisdom of millennia here: that direct democracy at any level larger than a village where everybody knows everybody is not a workable system of government.

Another of those Known Facts that the intellectuals bring out to convince themselves that the general population really does need to be controlled by them even if they don't realize it.

You could equally say that republic democracy has been a failure everywhere it has been given time to fail.

However, there is a world of different between what I'm saying and your arguemnt that it isn't "workable." Your argument is about logistics, and one I agree with. I'm saying that the representatives should try to discren the will of the people, and the better the representative, the better he will be able to do that. He shouldn't try to force his will on the poeple for their own good. Some rep's opnions may just be very similar to the electorate's, so enacting his will is fine. Some rep's own opinions may be far from the electorate's, so he will have to use his ability to read the electorate to determine how to govern or craft legislation. In the cases where it is too hard to read the electorate clearly and the impact is too large, then propositions are a way to directly determine the will of the people. I not saying that they should be used to day to day business or every since decision. Only when needed, and reps, no matter how good they are at reading the people, are going to get them wrong from time to time, but the best know that this is their job and they will be graded on how well they do it.

It didn't even work that well in ancient Athens (See: Peloponessian wars, Sokrates' execution, Aristotle's exile, etc.)

You're smart enough to know that listing a few problems isn't an argument. Should I start listing things that happened under representative democracy? Please.

However, democracy in Athens wouldn't quite the model. Leaders were chosen at random, and suffrage wasn't universal. That is like walking around blindfolded with half your brain removed.

Yes, and under a constitutional republic power is not inherent to a small group (that would describe an oligarchy).

We are a nation of hundreds of millions with over $11 trillion of productionr, but ruled by less than a thousand. That is a huge concentration of power. At the federal level you only need to pay off a few hundred people. At state and local levels far less.

Imagine if CA had no legislature, but we elected a single person to fulfill the role of that and governor. That single person would get his power from the people too, democratically elected and all, but there is no doubt that would be too much power in too few people. And there is also no doubt that every time this leader changed, the state's laws would be thrown into chaos. The would be so much uncertainly, business and individuals would have an almost impossible time planning more than two years ahead. The same happens with such a small government body in Sacramento compated to the millions of us in the rest of the state. They may be smarter than the rest of us, but they are not even close to smart enough to forulate policy nearly as well as we can as a group.

that's exactly what I mean.  People slowly come to understand first that gays aren't perverts after their children, then that they aren't all promiscuous drug-takers... etc on down the line.  Gay marriage will eventually happen because there aren't any harms associated with it.  I mean, people say that it's redefining marriage, but what's the harm in that?  It doesn't harm current marriages, and won't keep heteros from getting married, so eventually it will become legal.

are in German (which is 50% of my ethnicity):

Ordnung muss sein.

Anarchism will only be viable after the Parousia.

on that mayonnaise number.  You're using is as a giant wedge to marginalize the the pro-alternate spread community. </end silliness&gt

I think you are playing into the "pro-family" group's hands by attacking them like this.  What annoys me the most is that this issue has such a high profile.  It's similar to the flag-burning amendment in this case: a small number of dedicated activists using demagoguery, and the rest of the population caring little if at all about the issue.  

I for one don't care if gays can get married or not.  I want governement to make some common-sense decisions about equal rights and tackle the bigger issues.