Glenn Beck gets hoisted by his own petard?

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by robertthebard So I'm curious, what business is it of anyone who somebody else wants to marry? How do these items get put up for a vote? Do "The People" just go to the polls and write it in, or do cowardly politicians add it to a ballot to save their cash cows, er, jobs? As a card carrying hetero, I don't really care who gay people marry. I'm more concerned with couples that can actually reproduce.

Getting a measure to ballot works differently in the 24 states that allow them. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum

In the most recent case in Maine- the anti-gay marriage side ran ads insinuating gay sex acts would be taught in schools, ect. Real fear and prejudice mongering stuff. Starnge how nothing like that hasn't happened here in MA, though I read we have seen great economic growth thanks to having Marriage Liberty.

[Morgeruat]

Originally Posted by robertthebard So I'm curious, what business is it of anyone who somebody else wants to marry? How do these items get put up for a vote? Do "The People" just go to the polls and write it in, or do cowardly politicians add it to a ballot to save their cash cows, er, jobs? As a card carrying hetero, I don't really care who gay people marry. I'm more concerned with couples that can actually reproduce.

Not that this has anything to do with the original topic, but I'll humor you.

I take issue when a private business can no longer reserve the right to refuse service to any customer for any reason (AZ Photographer refused to photograph a civil union, instead referring the couple to a colleague who would happily do it, he was sued for discrimination and lost), or when a religious institution cannot refuse to permit something it finds morally objectionable (a NJ church refused to rent it's private property for a civil union and was sued, eventually losing it's tax-free status granted to nearly all churches), or when schools foist it upon children without parental notification or permission (a teacher in California taking her kindergarten class to see a gay marriage, no parental notification was given, nor an option to opt out of the field trip), as well as making gay marriage part of the school curriculum for 1-3rd grade students (also in California). THOSE few examples among many I can point out and provide links to are symptoms of the problem, a minority pushing it's agenda against the choice of private individuals and private businesses and churches, effectively legislating to them what correct moral behavior is. The marketplace can handle that without an uppity pushy homosexual taking them to court. The photographer, was knowingly giving up business, taking a loss while at the same time, telling them where they could get the service they desired. The church, well it's highly unlikely that the couple were regular church-goers to begin with, but if they were, the church would have lost members of it's congregation, etc. As for the kids, it's hard enough being a parent and instilling values in those kids without being blindsided by a teacher forcing her point of view when it may run contrary to everything the parents believe and teach at home.

Heck, the school my girls go to has a prize system for the kids if they can get people to quit smoking. I'm not in favor of smoking by any means, but I am in favor of personal choice, and that kind of indoctrination, even on something "for your own good" I'm opposed to. Let the parents be parents, not all of us expect the schools to be mommy and daddy.

[Morgeruat]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Getting a measure to ballot works differently in the 24 states that allow them. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum In the most recent case in Maine- the anti-gay marriage side ran ads insinuating gay sex acts would be taught in schools, ect. Real fear and prejudice mongering stuff. Starnge how nothing like that hasn't happened here in MA, though I read we have seen great economic growth thanks to having Marriage Liberty.

Really, and here I'd heard about MA's crippling debt, skyrocketing taxes, the wealthy (who can't evade the taxes and aren't named Kennedy) fleeing because said taxes disproportionately target them, and enormous budget deficits, thanks to state legislature run by Democrats with no concept of fiscal responsibility.


Not that PA's doing much better, in spite of Rendell forcing casino's and other forms of gambling on us so that him and his cronies can enjoy the kickbacks. Electricity rate caps are poised to come off at the end of December doubling or tripling what most people pay for energy.

[machinehead]

Skyrocketing taxes???
Mass. ranks #23 in State and local tax burden and #2 in per capita income.
http://www.retirementliving.com/tax_burden_2008.pdf

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by Morgeruat Not that this has anything to do with the original topic, but I'll humor you. I take issue when a private business can no longer reserve the right to refuse service to any customer for any reason (AZ Photographer refused to photograph a civil union, instead referring the couple to a colleague who would happily do it, he was sued for discrimination and lost), or when a religious institution cannot refuse to permit something it finds morally objectionable (a NJ church refused to rent it's private property for a civil union and was sued, eventually losing it's tax-free status granted to nearly all churches), or when schools foist it upon children without parental notification or permission (a teacher in California taking her kindergarten class to see a gay marriage, no parental notification was given, nor an option to opt out of the field trip), as well as making gay marriage part of the school curriculum for 1-3rd grade students (also in California). THOSE few examples among many I can point out and provide links to are symptoms of the problem, a minority pushing it's agenda against the choice of private individuals and private businesses and churches, effectively legislating to them what correct moral behavior is. The marketplace can handle that without an uppity pushy homosexual taking them to court. The photographer, was knowingly giving up business, taking a loss while at the same time, telling them where they could get the service they desired. The church, well it's highly unlikely that the couple were regular church-goers to begin with, but if they were, the church would have lost members of it's congregation, etc. As for the kids, it's hard enough being a parent and instilling values in those kids without being blindsided by a teacher forcing her point of view when it may run contrary to everything the parents believe and teach at home.

So these examples mean that it's ok to discriminate against the minority? Because this is how that comes off. Discrimination is bad either way, and in the case of the photographer, I don't know how he lost. I would call foul on that as well. However, I don't think that that justifies saying "Because this happened, we're going to tell you you don't have the right to love and marry this other person", see what I mean here?

I wouldn't appreciate having my child forced to go to any wedding, or church function w/out my knowledge, and in this, it's the teacher that was wrong, not the couple getting married, regardless of their genders. So where does that justify telling somebody they can't marry somebody they want to marry?

Heck, the school my girls go to has a prize system for the kids if they can get people to quit smoking. I'm not in favor of smoking by any means, but I am in favor of personal choice, and that kind of indoctrination, even on something "for your own good" I'm opposed to. Let the parents be parents, not all of us expect the schools to be mommy and daddy.

Telling a gay couple they can't get married, and making it illegal to do so is still legislating morality, no matter how you look at it. From reading your response, you find it offensive, and so, it should be illegal. However, while I'm not gay, I don't think it's any of my business to tell those gay people they can't get married if they want to. I should not have a right to say that two people cannot get married, legally. If I object, I can go to the wedding and object there, most services have that included, if anyone objects, speak now...Going to the government and saying "I find this morally objectionable, so it should be illegal" is no more right that the teacher taking kids to the Union ceremony w/out parental approval.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by robertthebard So these examples mean that it's ok to discriminate against the minority? Because this is how that comes off. Discrimination is bad either way, and in the case of the photographer, I don't know how he lost. I would call foul on that as well. However, I don't think that that justifies saying "Because this happened, we're going to tell you you don't have the right to love and marry this other person", see what I mean here? I wouldn't appreciate having my child forced to go to any wedding, or church function w/out my knowledge, and in this, it's the teacher that was wrong, not the couple getting married, regardless of their genders. So where does that justify telling somebody they can't marry somebody they want to marry? Telling a gay couple they can't get married, and making it illegal to do so is still legislating morality, no matter how you look at it. From reading your response, you find it offensive, and so, it should be illegal. However, while I'm not gay, I don't think it's any of my business to tell those gay people they can't get married if they want to. I should not have a right to say that two people cannot get married, legally. If I object, I can go to the wedding and object there, most services have that included, if anyone objects, speak now...Going to the government and saying "I find this morally objectionable, so it should be illegal" is no more right that the teacher taking kids to the Union ceremony w/out parental approval.

I've had this same discussion with my college friends recently. One of our group, even more right/conservative than I, insists gays are trying to "force us (individuals) to accept their lifestyle". I, and others, countered that they are trying to force the government to "accept" their lifestyle and grant them the same rights hetero couples receive.

However, the examples listed by Morg do imply gays are trying to force acceptance of their lifestyles by all individuals, not just state governments. That simply isn't going to happen nor do they have the right to expect or demand it be so just as I have no right to demand or expect atheists to accept my lifestyle as a Christian.

Gays claim they only want the same legal rights automatically offered to a hetero couple, which is a very reasonable request and - from a legal POV - I agree the state or federal government should make no distinction about the gender of partners getting married.

However, when offered the choice of a civil union, which supposedly does grant the same rights as a hetero marriage, gays then insist their union be called a "marriage" or it isn't really equal to the hetero version.

If their only concern is the legal rights granted to hetero partners, it shouldn't matter what their partnership is called. Insisting that it be given the same label does imply they not only want the same legal rights, but the same social acceptance as hetero couples. That is something that cannot be legislated.

As for churches, I believe T.L. is the one that has suggested many times that the legal ceremony and religous ceremony be separated. Then churches cannot perform the legal portion of the ceremony for anyone, but would be well within their rights to choose which unions they sanction with a religious ceremony and which ones they do not. Either way, a church schould not lose their tax-exempt status for following the beliefs of their religion.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by Cerek However, the examples listed by Morg do imply gays are trying to force acceptance of their lifestyles by all individuals,

OMG, thats sounds so scary. Forcing acceptance, is that like using laws to prevent people from doing something a person may disapprove of?

Like forcing two men to accept they cannot get married to each other?

Is forcing non-gay people to accept inequality in their neighboring States and across their Nation also like this forcing of acceptance gay people are stand accused of doing?

If you haven't noticed, claiming that gays are trying to "force acceptance" is about a hypocritical argument as can be made.

Reasonable people might agree that certain factions of Both sides love to try and force acceptance, but they can never succeed-it's an impossible task.

Oh and Gays make claims do they? LOL Doubt it even comes close to equaling what people who don't like gays claim ( like claiming gayness is a "lifestyle"), even if it's as duplicitous as it is implied.

[robertthebard]

I say flip the script, if Union is the same thing, why not just call it a marriage? What's the harm? Other than it offends some people that a gay couple might call their union a marriage. As Chewie said, those that take this line are forcing this onto gay people whether the gay people like it or not. They have no options, if they want to stay where they are. Equality is for everyone, or everyone would still own slaves, and women wouldn't be allowed to vote. That slaves would be free men started a civil war, and women voting had a civil rights movement. Since these civil rights have been established to apply to all citizens, who are we to deny them to a specific group?

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca OMG, thats sounds so scary. Forcing acceptance, is that like using laws to prevent people from doing something a person may disapprove of? Like forcing two men to accept they cannot get married to each other? Is forcing non-gay people to accept inequality in their neighboring States and across their Nation also like this forcing of acceptance gay people are stand accused of doing? If you haven't noticed, claiming that gays are trying to "force acceptance" is about a hypocritical argument as can be made. Reasonable people might agree that certain factions of Both sides love to try and force acceptance, but they can never succeed-it's an impossible task. Oh and Gays make claims do they? LOL Doubt it even comes close to equaling what people who don't like gays claim ( like claiming gayness is a "lifestyle"), even if it's as duplicitous as it is implied.

Every counter-example you list is an example of gays having to accept an existing legal issue or inequality.

If you re-read my previous statement, you will see I agree gay couples should be granted the same legal rights as hetero couples, regardless of what the partnership is called.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by robertthebard I say flip the script, if Union is the same thing, why not just call it a marriage? What's the harm? Other than it offends some people that a gay couple might call their union a marriage. As Chewie said, those that take this line are forcing this onto gay people whether the gay people like it or not. They have no options, if they want to stay where they are. Equality is for everyone, or everyone would still own slaves, and women wouldn't be allowed to vote. That slaves would be free men started a civil war, and women voting had a civil rights movement. Since these civil rights have been established to apply to all citizens, who are we to deny them to a specific group?

It's such a personal intrusion as well, straight into people's family rooms and bedrooms. But you can't leglislate neighborliness so we'll just have to count on equality to win the day!