Gay marriage is comparable to legalizing incest

[davidmash]

Huckabee

Where does Huckabee come up with this crap? I guess as long as he keeps spouting BS like this there is little chance of him getting elected as POTUS.

"I don't have to prove that marriage is a man and a woman in a relationship for life," he said. "They have to prove that two men can have an equally definable relationship called marriage, and somehow that that can mean the same thing."

I think I missed that part of my civics class.

[Emmerich]

Huckabee is more in the majority opinion than you think. EVERY time gay marriage has come up for referendum in the states, it was shot down, including uber-liberal California.

Its interesting why the Dems suck up to them (no pun intended). Some would think it is because liberals are more "open minded". On the contrary, politicians are only interested in votes. And gays are a tiny, insignificant voting block. HOWEVER, without having children to raise and support, they usually have a hoard of cash and the Dems are going for that booty. And it appears to work.

[2.5Turbo]

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Huckabee is more in the majority opinion than you think. EVERY time gay marriage has come up for referendum in the states, it was shot down, including uber-liberal California.

Its interesting why the Dems suck up to them (no pun intended). Some would think it is because liberals are more "open minded". On the contrary, politicians are only interested in votes. And gays are a tiny, insignificant voting block. HOWEVER, without having children to raise and support, they usually have a hoard of cash and the Dems are going for that booty. And it appears to work.

Not quite true. While not gay marriage per-se, Washington citizens passed Referendum 71 last November that extended the exact same rights and benefits to state registered domestic partnerships.

[MTI]

Public referendum isn't the "gold standard" of civil rights. The misguided theory of "majority rules" is merely cover for tyranny against the minority.

[Jim B.]

Originally Posted by Emmerich

EVERY time gay marriage has come up for referendum in the states, it was shot down, including uber-liberal California.

Massive infusions of cash from the Mormon Church in Utah, and the attendant propaganda is what killed it in California..


However, so far as I am personally concerned, if they want it that bad, let them have it; and with it, the attendent horrors of divorce court, endless property and child custody battles that only enrich lawyers, and all the other misery that is marriage.

< shrugs >

[Sev]

""I don't have to prove that marriage is a man and a woman in a relationship for life," he said. "They have to prove that two men can have an equally definable relationship called marriage, and somehow that that can mean the same thing."

I agree with this comment

[Sev]

"Massive infusions of cash from the Mormon Church in Utah, and the attendant propaganda is what killed it in California."

nope, what killed it was the fact that people believe at a fundamental level that marraige is between a man and a woman. and they're right

[kerry]

Originally Posted by Sev

nope, what killed it was the fact that people believe at a fundamental level that marraige is between a man and a woman. and they're right

Not even the Mormons believe that. If they had their way, it would still be between a man and a bunch of women.

I'd like to know the average age of the voters in the referendum. I'm guessing that they reason the anti-gay marriage referendums win is because the voters are weighted towards older people. Pro-gay marriage seems to have won the culture wars amongst the youath as far as I can see.

[Kuan]

Technically, male/male or female/female sex cannot work thus they are not having sex.

[aklim]

When he says: "I don't have to prove that marriage is a man and a woman in a relationship for life,", he is right. He doesn't. More likely, he CANNOT. What is the divorce rate again? Relationship for life my hiney.

[JollyRoger]

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Huckabee is more in the majority opinion than you think. EVERY time gay marriage has come up for referendum in the states, it was shot down, including uber-liberal California.

Its interesting why the Dems suck up to them (no pun intended). Some would think it is because liberals are more "open minded". On the contrary, politicians are only interested in votes. And gays are a tiny, insignificant voting block. HOWEVER, without having children to raise and support, they usually have a hoard of cash and the Dems are going for that booty. And it appears to work.

The only thing those referendums prove is that the country is full of bigots. There are questions for elections, and then there are questions for the courts, that's how our system works. If we held an election forcing everyone in this country to become Christians or go to jail, it would win handily in a number of states, but thankfully, we have a Constitution that prohibits it, no matter what any "election" says. I see these "elections" where a majority of frightened bigots decide to discriminate, as being of the same class. They are simply elections deciding on whether or not to violate the US Constitution. If the same elections were held in the pre-1968 South prohibiting whites to marry blacks, you would have had the exact same result. Disgusting bigotry is always eminently electable. Congratulations, you won.

Here is what the Constitution says: We Are All Equal Before the Law. Here is what the Declaration of Independence says: All of us are born with three basic natural rights: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I could careless what any election run by organized bigotry proclaims, homosexuality is no longer a crime in this country thanks to our Supreme Court, and if it is not a crime, these individuals need to have the same natural rights I have, recognized. They have a right to marry whomever they please, simply because I have that right, no other reason, argument, or religious ranting need apply. It is that simple. We are ALL equal before the law.

Your characterizations of why your great generality "Democrats" pursue this issue the way they do, is absurd. The Republican Party is slowly eroding into it's base of what was once called the "Dixiecrat" Party, the same group that always seems to want to restrict the rights of others, whether it be women seeking abortions, blacks seeking an end to segregation, or now gays seeking to merely be free to pursue happiness. We oppose that group, not for any of the reasons you state which of course are twisted mischaracterizations of your political enemies, we oppose you because you are fascist.

[JollyRoger]

Originally Posted by Sev

"Massive infusions of cash from the Mormon Church in Utah, and the attendant propaganda is what killed it in California."

nope, what killed it was the fact that people believe at a fundamental level that marraige is between a man and a woman. and they're right

The real question is what right you have to demand that others follow your particular beliefs? The right to marry the person you love is an intimate, inseparable subset of the Right To Pursuit of Happiness. What right do you have to deny to other people that natural right?

[kerry]

While I agree that gays should have the same rights as straights, it seems to me to be a very big stretch to call it a 'natural right'. I'm inclined to agree with Bentham on this issue that a 'natural right' is nonsense on stilts. For most of human history people did not have a 'natural right to marry'. Marriages were arranged by parents and still are in many parts of the world. Obtaining the 'right' to marry who one chooses is a big advance in social and political rights which shifts power from the older generations to the younger generations and may produce more happiness than having one's spouse chosen by someone else. However, it's no more a natural right, than voting is a natural right.

[Txjake]

"If we held an election forcing everyone in this country to become Christians or go to jail, it would win handily in a number of states,"


lights flashing BS horn honking loudly..... your assertion is so flawed and generalistic in nature that it is hardly worth commenting on, yet I feel compelled to do so, so that the unitiated will not be confused...

[MS Fowler]

Since Jolly Roger was the first to invoke the accusation of "fascist", I declare him the loser in this debate. ( Isn't there an internet rule to that effect?)
He was ahead on points before use of that term.