Good for Kerry. He ain't going to bend over for the Mass. Court.

I was actually thinking that it ain't good for single issue voters that hate Bush because of his SSM stand. They are going to have to find a way to justify voting for Kerry - when his position is identical to Dick Cheney.

The Mass.Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November
that same sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Let's get one thing right, There is no constitutional right for homosexual marriage and there never has been one in the USA.
Call up your favorite constitutional lawyer.

Catch 22,

Are you saying that certain people should not have equal protection under the law because of what they are?

The question is whether or not Kerry will support that amendment or not, as it is the question for Bush. Kerry can say "God hates fags" as long as he doesn't try to translate that into law. It's like the politicians (usually Democrats) who are "personally opposed" to abortion, but nothing ever comes of that in concrete, practical legal terms. The question I have for either Presidential candidate is: will he leave it to the states? Will he let the people of Massachusetts themselves decide whether they want it or not? Or will he impose on them his own idea (or his supporters' idea) of what's sacred and what's not through a Constitutional amendment? If yes, then good. If not, then no vote from me.
And the courts, all of them, from the Supreme Court on down (and, yes, I'm looking at you, 9th circuit!), had damn well better lay off the DOMA! Leave that alone. Leave that bloody well enough alone. Right now, it's our only protection from the fools on my side and the Enemy on the other. This issue simply _must_ be left to each state to decide.

Maybe that makes me a single issue voter. I don't mind being called that because, as I've said before, we all are, just on different issues. Some people's single issue is the economy and their $$$$$. Other people's single issue is the War and the military. Other people's single issue is their right to keep and bear arms. Other people's single issue is abortion, for or against. Other people's single issue is this "girly" stuff about privacy, intimacy, and fidelity. We all have priorities.

I suppose I'd better clarify that my preference is for Bush. The decision really is entirely up to Bush. If he surprises me and finally says no to that FMA, then he gets my vote. That doesn't necessarily mean I'll vote for Kerry. I don't really like Kerry all that much. My friend Jeff Soyer at Alphecca definitely doesn't like him*. I may end up leaving the Presidential slot blank. Don't know. A Democratic President and a Republican Congress sounds OK to me. Gridlock is a feature not a bug, especially at a time like this. Keep Borks and/or gun-banners off the Supreme Court. Block bad legislation or bad executive moves. Checks and balances.

*"Fake, phony fraud". I know, I know, Kerry served in Viet Nam. You know what else? I hear that Strom Thurmond fought in World War II, at Normandy (just like my Dad). Does that mean I'd ever have dreamed of voting for Thurmond for President in 1948? Please don't confuse me with Trent "Vacant" Lott. Racist bastard.

"Are you saying that certain people should not have equal protection under the law because of what they are?"

No, that I am not saying. However,

The Mass.Court made their ruling on the basis of the Mass. Equal Rights Amendment of 1976. BUT,it was NEVER the intent of the ERA of 1976, that it be relied on to approve same sex marriage. Had it been, an exception would have surely been enacted back in 1976.

So what we have is a judicial ruling by four of seven justices dictating to the legislature to change society. In the USA, the law is that which is established by Congress, signed by the Executive and upheld by the Courts. The Mass. Court is attempting to circumvent that process denying the legislature its natural function.

It can best be expressed by the words of Abraham Lincoln:

"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme
Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

But you would deny homosexuals a right afforded heterosexuals because they are homosexuals. That, it seems to me, directly contravenes the principle of equal justice under the law.

Sounds to me like you don't want the judiciary striking down laws and legislation that discriminate against a facet of society. A tyranny of the majority that seeks to keep certain minorities in their place.

And what would you counsel when a law proves to be in direct violation of either a state constitution, or the Federal Constitution? A higher law? Are we to allow legislation to alter, amend, or otherwise change what is the law of the land. Thus rendering that law open to change by the venal, the small minded, and those seeking cheap applause from their constituency. Shall we now abandon the established method of amending the US Constitution in favor of legislation enacted through a quorum vote?

Catch 22, just because a state or federal court makes a decision you don't like does not mean it's wrong. Without 'judicial activists' we would be overrun with horrid, oppressive, discriminative, bad laws. Do you want that?

BTW, where did you get that Lincoln quote?

I'm not sure why anyone should care what a presidential candidate thinks about a constitutional amendment. It's not as though Presidents had any say in that process anyway.

Xrlq,

Of course, you're right. But I suspect that if Bush strongly opposed a constitutional amendment it would have a tougher tim going through.

ROSEMARY:

John Kerry opposes gay marriage because it is politically convenient. I expect that, if he is elected president, he will soften that stance. I'm not a big fan, but I trust him more than, say, Clinton.

Alan,

The Lincoln quote came from from a WSJ Editorial by the Mass governor.

This is just one of the reasons Kerry is my 3rd or 4th choice. I can live with him, and he's better than Dubya, but only Dean and Kucinach have a solid committment to equal rights for ALL Americans---whether it's popular or not.

Don,

Dean doesn't support equal marriage rights either. I don't know where you get that "solid committment to equal rights" thing.

Michael,

Ok, I'm confused. You said that Kerry is opposing SSM for the sake of political convenience, and yet you trust him NOT to be telling the truth? Seems to me Kerry is either saying what he believes (which would make you unhappy with him because you disagree with his statement) or he is pandering (which would make him appear to be untrustworthy). Surely "not a big fan" is understating the case? I don't see how this episode could be anything but a negative for Kerry in your eyes.

Xrlq:
"I'm not sure why anyone should care what a presidential candidate thinks about a constitutional amendment. It's not as though Presidents had any say in that process anyway."

In 2 words: Bully Pulpit

Catch 22 quotes this from Abraham Lincoln:
"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme
Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

A few questions (for everyone):

1) Do you think President Lincoln would or would not have wanted the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to be upheld by the Supreme Court?

2) If he had been alive in 1954 to see the Supreme Court rule in Brown vs. Board of education, do you think he would have approved or not? If so, do you think he would have approved of the reasoning in that decision?

3) Who is the President of the United States right now? Al Gore or George W. Bush? Who says so?

4) Do you believe that the Boy Scouts of America have a Constitutional right to exclude homosexuals and atheists from their organization? If so, on what authority do you believe this? Are the words "freedom of association" mentioned in the Constitution? If not, then under what penumbra or emanation do you find that right? Does that freedom of association also apply to intimate relations in the home?

5) John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner. Are you familiar with these names?

6) Do you understand the difference between GOING TO court vs. BEING HAULED INTO a court in handcuffs in the middle of the night?

7) Do you think Tyron Garner would agree with the argument that it is racist and offensive to black men and women to compare their struggles with those of homosexual men and women? Do you think he would not be offended by that argument?

8) If everyone here, whatever they they think of homosexuals or of homosexual marriage, agrees that homosexuals should be left alone, then are we still debating Lawrence & Garner vs. Texas? If so, why? If so, then are we still debating Griswold vs. Connecticut? Loving vs. Virginia? Brown vs. Board? If not, then what is the difference?

I asked:
"7) Do you think Tyron Garner would agree with the argument that it is racist and offensive to black men and women to compare their struggles with those of homosexual men and women? Do you think he would not be offended by that argument?"

Here's a little news item I saw at MarriageDebate.com that might shed some more light on the question:

The National Black Justice Coalition has announced the support of civil rights leader Julian Bond. Bond joins with Coretta Scott King, Carol Moseley Braun, Al Sharpton, John Lewis, Henry Louis Gates and other African American leaders who publicly support marriage equality. Julian Bond, chairman of the board of directors of the NAACP, has announced his personal support of legitimizing gay marriage. "I see this as a civil rights issue," said Julian Bond. "That means I support gay civil marriage." Bond, the chairman of the board of directors of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, was speaking in his personal capacity and not for the NAACP. "We are very pleased that Julian Bond has spoken out affirmatively on this issue," said Keith Boykin, president of the board of the National Black Justice Coalition. "His statement helps to clarify two important points. First, marriage is a basic human right, and second, outlawing discrimination in civil marriage does not change the rules for religious marriage."

What is the big deal here? Kerry is covering his right flank. He's already said he is against a constitutional amendment...that is the middle ground now, against the amendment on the right, against marriage on the left, and in favor of civil unions or domestic partnerships.

A constitutional amendment defining marriage as a domestic union between one man and one woman is exactly what the United States is going to get.

In one state after another, anti-homosexual marriage laws are being passed with overwhelming public support, and it is only a matter of time before the houses of the United States Congress follows suit, and it is so enacted into a constitutional amendment.

Because that is the only way the people of the this country will permanently protect themselves against just the kind of monstrosity foisted upon public sensitities by the Massachusetts court. Once the constitutional amendment is affectuated, it shall silence all such arguments in all American courts. Because the United States Constitution, as amended, is in fact the last word.

Those of you who did not want this vast reaction against you to occur should have remained in the closet with your homosexuality, rather than stirring up the visceral feelings of the straight heterosexual permanent majority by so openly pushing for something that so obviously threatens the validity of normal male-female marriage, and that, even worse, oculd open the door to forced recognition of the repulsive acts of even worse breeds of sexual perverts such as pedophiles.

In the meantime, the Democrat parties will be losing one seat after another in all the state legislatures because their party has unwisely tied itself to the political kiss of death of the organized homosexual community.

The Democrats did the same thing over the issue of personal protection acts (concealed carry of firearms), which have now been enacted in 46 of 50 states. There too, Democrats have been stripped out of state capitols one after another, while attempting to attack this fundamental liberty of law abiding American citizens.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold, I do not think a federal constitutional amendment will pass. It may get 2/3 support int he house, but not in the Senate.

Also, to pass an amendment, you need at least 37 states to agree.

I can think off the top of my head of more the 13 states in which it won't pass. Our founders made amendments very difficult to get passed, and thank god for that.

"But you would deny homosexuals a right afforded heterosexuals because they are homosexuals. That, it seems to me, directly contravenes the principle of equal justice under the law."

In my first reply, I clearly said.

"No, that I am not saying..."

Sorry, I'm not going to be around today to elaborate further until later this evening.

The Lincoln quote is from Professor Bainbridge.com under the heading Judicial Activism.

The Mass. court is forcing the legislature to create a right to gay marriage that doesn't exist and never did exist. The function of the court is to rule on the constitutionality of the laws made by the legislature and signed by the
executive. The court is not a legislative function.

Pass it shall, Mike.

Banning recognition of abnormal marriages such those between persons of the same sex will become one of the defining issues of the coming years. Whatever influence, understanding and acceptance homosexuals may have earned in recent decades will be shattered by this single act of madness of a state court.

And as I wrote, support of homosexual causes will become the political kiss of death of any candidate who espouses it outside of the few selected communities in this country in which homosexuals live and vote in numbers sufficient to empower them. But when you really stop to think of these things, there are not many radical communities such as Berkeley, Madison, Cambridge, or others in which politicians pay obeisance to homosexuals because it make good political sense.

I know, because Dane County WI, where I live, is represented in the US Congress by Tammy Baldwin, an openly homosexual woman. One of these terms, her proclivity will be sufficiently publicized in less-radical communities in her district, and she shall be removed from power. In fact, the campaign against her keeping office for a third term is largely shaping up around just that issue. And the man we are running against her is a conservative black, Ron Greer, who is overwhelmingly respected in local right-wing circles. Don't think for a minute that won't help our man split the Democrat base vote in our black communities around here.

I say again. Democrats are fools for tying their party to the obvious political kiss of death inherent in such an issue.

I work at politics at local and state politics in general and pro-gun politics in particular, and I know more or less what I'm talking about in these matters. And I know a political opportunity when I see it smiling at me any my fellow Republicans.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Pass it shall, Mike.

Care to place a friendly wager?

Your predictions of doom for the pro-gay side amount to wishful thinking. They remind me of nothing more then the hollow boasts of Islamic terrorists who brag on their web sites about how they are **this close*** to bringing down America and talk about are the daring attacks they have planned!

I'm actually familiar with Dane County, and Greer is seen in that area as a total buffoon. If he is the best guy you have to go up against Baldwin this year, she might as well relax and get ready for the 2006 campaign because 2004 will be a walk.

Also remember when Baldwin first ran for the House a few years ago, it was heavily covered by the media that she woul dbe the first open lesbian to go to Congress...so if there is anyone in Dane County who doesn't know she is gay, they must have been in a coma the past 4 years.

PS - Madison is a great little city, the biggest in the county, and practically as liberal as San Francisco!

For those of you claiming 'judicial activism', the nytimes has a very good article today about the background of the judges (hint: neither liberal nor activist) and detailing a bit of their argument.

Also, I think it is fairly clear from a legal standpoint that this is not 'activism' but a relatively simple reading of the text of the applicable law.

Catch-22 has a good point when he says the intent of the ERA of 76 was not to create a right to gay marriage. But since the text is very clear, intent is moot. If the question had been raised then, I agree they would have added language forbidding gay marriage...But it wasn't and they didn't.

Then he states "The Mass. court is forcing the legislature to create a right to gay marriage that doesn't exist and never did exist. The function of the court is to rule on the constitutionality of the laws made by the legislature and signed by the
executive. The court is not a legislative function."

But this is all wrong. The court is NOT saying they need to create a right of gay marriage. The court is saying the legislature has ALREADY created that right with language of the ERA of 76. And if that was a mistake, then the legislature must rewrite the state constitution and/or the amendment to fix it.

And in response to Arnold, I think this is exactly what will happen: Since both parties see nothing to gain with a national amendment, I suspect we will see state constitutions amended in the states where the people feel strongly. (and likely, repealed 20 or 30 years down the road...so that all their descendents can look back and laugh at what idiots they were.)

Right, we agree to equal rights for everyone. That means we'll get around to equal rights for homosexuals right after we determine that age limits for driving, drinking, voting, smoking, and pornography are violating equal protection under the law.
We'll get rid of all affirmative action, because that violates equal rights.
Tall people will no longer get first choice for basketball.
Grades will no longer be handed out.
The progressive tax system will be abolished.
Anyone can be armed, because it's violating rights to let military and police be armed and no one else.
I also demand my right to have sex with anyone I want at any time, whether they want to or not, because that's my right to my privacy in my own home, even if I had to kidnap the person and drag them into my bedroom screaming.
We should be able to marry off our kids from birth. No more abortion.
Sex with 12 year olds is no okay. Heck, there are more historical precedents for that being legal than homosexuality.

Yeah, I like this Equal Protection Under the Law thing.

Or, maybe it would be better if you guys would get a little introspection and stop trying to slam dunk the debate with your narrow-minded assumptions that homosexual marriage is already a right that is being denied.
Maybe it is.
You've utterly failed to provide any evidence other than overheated rhetoric. You've convinced only yourselves.
That makes you no different than the Ku Klux Klan and Hitler: trying to impose the will of the minority on the majority based on the strength of your conviction alone.

Nathan, you are being silly.

If you are concerned with overheated rhetoric, please look in the mirror first.

Also remember Godwin's law: whoever brings up Hitler or the Nazis first in an internet debate automatically loses!

I hate it when I regret posting based on a reaction.

The reason I put it like that is I am absolutely sick of the assertion that not allowing homosexuals to marry each other has already been proven to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. That has not been determined by any means.
You can believe it, sure. I won't fault you for that. You can try to convince people that it is a violation of rights. That is your duty as a citizen, I think: to try to convince people to agree with you.
But it is absolutely dishonest to ask a question like: "Are you saying that certain people should not have equal protection under the law because of what they are?"
There are too many unfounded assumptions in such a interrogative. It's like that old: "stopped beating your wife yet?" trap. It demonstrates a willingness to use any means, fair or foul, to achieve your goal. As such, it makes me suspect hidden agendas even more.

Mike,
I was purposefully slinging overheated rhetoric...
...but yeah, it was an overreaction. The second post is closer to what I really think/feel.

As to losing the argument: I know I won't convince anyone here, so I don't really care about "winning" or "losing" arguments in a blog discussion. Okay, I lose. But that doesn't change that the rhetoric I was reacting against was dishonest. It doesn't make it any more or less likely that SSM will be enacted.

Dangit!
Even the last post didn't really capture the sheepish humor I was trying to direct toward myself.
Let me try again:
Ya got me! I was being exceedingly silly, with a nice helping of "stupid" mixed in.

I still think that what I was reacting to was an unfair rhetorical device, but that doesn't excuse me waxing ridiculous on my own part.

I'll try to be more careful in the future.

[grin]

“Those of you who did not want this vast reaction against you to occur should have remained in the closet with your homosexuality, rather than stirring up the visceral feelings of the straight heterosexual permanent majority by so openly pushing for something that so obviously threatens the validity of normal male-female marriage, and that, even worse, oculd open the door to forced recognition of the repulsive acts of even worse breeds of sexual perverts such as pedophiles.”

Please speak for yourself, Mr. Harris. Many heterosexuals feel neither “visceral feelings” toward gays or worry about any threat from same-sex marriage to heterosexual marriage or to children. We have real and present threats to families and children to occupy our visceral feelings.

Homosexuality is NOT something someone is. It is something someone does. It is an action, not a state of being.

We could discuss people's proclivities all day long. But regardless of proclivity, people are responsible for their actions. Homosexuals argue that they just can't help it. BULLSHIT. They made a choice to walk the path of the homosexual lifestyle. I can defend their right to make the choice without endorsing it.

Nathan says "I am absolutely sick of the assertion that not allowing homosexuals to marry each other has already been proven to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause."

Article 1 of the Declaration of Rights, as amended by art. 106 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, provides:

"All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin." . . .

What other reason can you give for not allowing two men (or women) to marry without discrimination based on sex, which is specifically outlawed? (I suppose you could argue that homosexuals can't get married, since homosexuality isn't a protected class. But what if two 'straight' men (or women) wanted to get married? You'd have to let them.)

(And please note that with the exception of affirmative action, NONE of your examples above are protected classes, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand.)

I have a sexual proclivity to want to screw every good looking girl that crosses my path. But I have been faithfully married for 15 years. I CHOOSE not to act on my sexual proclivity in order to fulfill my responsibility.

The proclivity to having promiscuous sex is not an excuse for engaging in promiscuous sex.

The desire of an HIV positive person to have sex does not excuse that person from the responsiblity of abstaining from recklessly infecting someone else.

The proclivity to have sex with small children does not excuse pedophilia.

The desire to have multiple wives or husbands does not excuse polygamy.

The urge to eat excessively does not excuse obesity.

The hormonal surges in the bodies of teenagers does not excuse them from responsibility to control those urges.

The assinine argument that "I can't control my desires" in utter BULLSHIT. The essence of maturity and civilization is the ability to successfully control your own desires. If you cannot, you have no right to call yourself civilized or mature. Self-denial is an essential element of civil society, without which civil society could not exist. We would be reduced to a Darwinian state of brute survival, like the animals. What are you, animals or men? Grow up!

I find the visceral disgust and total lack of respect expressed by Scott and Arnold against gay folk to be very sad.

I am not sexually promiscuous and I can control my desires. I was celebate for many, many years. Then I was blessed by falling in love, and living in truth and joy. that it was with another woman, is to me just how we are. Homosexuality is part of the wondrous pattern of human variation, as is race, eye color, etc etc. It's not a decision. It just IS. We don't hurt you or your relationship. If you are blessed in your marriages with the same joy and love, then you are indeed fortunate and I honor you!

I don't reduce the relationship of my straight friends into a consideration of what body part goes where. Frankly, it's none of my business. Why is that such an issue to you?

Homosexuality is NOT something someone is. It is something someone does. It is an action, not a state of being.

Saying the moon is made of green cheese, even if you are emphatic about it, doesn't make it so.

We can only assume that Scott is controlling not only his desire to “to screw every good looking girl that crosses my path” but also his desire to have sex with men. For those of us who are attracted only to the opposite sex and are fortunate enough to have fallen in love and get married, we should take a deep breath and think hard about why we need to deny those who are attracted only to the opposite sex the same practical benefits as well as the same joy.

OT: Mike, thanks for the shout-out to Madison. I love it here. I think Tammy Baldwin is amazing. Greer is a nut. And believe me, Arnold and his ilk do *not* represent Dane County. Thank god.

Doh! I meant: "...attracted only to the SAME sex the same practical benefits as well as the same joy". And I didn't think anything could be more complicated than heterosexuality.

I categorically oppose such a constitutional amendment, because it's exactly the kind of thinking that caused this problem!

The government should have nothing to do with getting or being married. This means no tax breaks/tax penalties (I don't believe that there should be any taxes at all, but that's a totally different battle), no denial of visitation rights in hospitals, no legal precedent giving a spouse half of everything (regardless of who earned it) after a divorce, and so on.

Situations involving private institutions (hospital visitation) or persons (divorce) are best addressed by private contract, not by some quasi-religious constitutional perversion.

Homosexual people are humans. Because of this, you can't morally deny anyone the right to become part of a legal class that is arbitrarily given legal protections/privileges. The only ultimate, moral solution is to abolish the legal distinction between single and married people.

Ambivalent person here, with a couple of questions:

Pro-gay marriage folks, do you in fact advocate expanding the definition of marriage to include any two consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation (ie. in addition to gay couples, should same-sex straight pairs be allowed to marry for the sake of the advantages therein)? Why or why not?

If not, how is "closing the door behind you" any less of an "equal protection" violation than having it "shut in your face"?

Patrick: "Gay" and "lesbian" are not sexes. There are only two sexes, male and female. And "equal protection" certainly doesn't mean that the state of Massachusetts can't draw distinctions of any kind between its citizens. Nor should it -- the end of that path is Harrison Bergeron.

Mike Silverman: How many states have passed "Defense of Marriage" Acts? Arnold Harris is reading the facts the same way Rosemary Esmay does; the difference is that he welcomes a backlash and Rosemary dreads it. Would you accuse Mrs. Esmay of wishful thinking?

Matt:

Two or more consenting adults should be able to marry, regardless of sexual orientation.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence.

Homosexuals,currently, have the same marriage rights as anyone else: they may marry a person of the opposite sex of their choosing. Simply because they, for personal reasons, choose not to does not amount to a violation of rights.

Anonymous:

It is a violation of their rights! The government should not give *anyone* incentives or disincentives to do *anything*, so long as the process does not violate the rights of those not involved.

In other words, gay people should get tax breaks when they get married.

Homosexuals,currently, have the same marriage rights as anyone else: they may marry a person of the opposite sex of their choosing

That is farcical. The same argument you make can be used to defend a ban on inter-racial marriage: "Anyone is free to marry someone of their own race, so there is no discrimination!"

How many states have passed "Defense of Marriage" Acts?

For the record, 37 which is the exact number needed to ratify a federal amendment. However, 3 of those states had theirs passed by referendum after the legisltures refused, so you can't really count those three (CA, NV and HI) to support a federal amendments. Also note that there is a big difference between passing a law and an amendment, and many people who favor a law against same-sex marriage may not favor the extreme step of a Constitutional amendment.

Michael, I never said gay was a sex. Maybe you misread my post?

Anyhow, the law doesn't prohibit gays marrying. The law (illegally) prohibits one man from doing what he could otherwise do if he were a woman (ie, marry a man). Which is clearly (illegal) descrimination based on SEX.

Saying the moon is made of green cheese, even if you are emphatic about it, doesn't make it so.
Right back atcha, Mike!
Patrick, you just prove my point. sex is not orientation.
Words cannot mean whatever you think they mean.

You keep asserting. You keep asserting. You keep asserting. That don't make it so.

I applaud your conviction. I deplore your inability to understand that just wanting it to be true does not make it so.

Unfortunately, the only way to prove it is through the time/patience you are apparently unwilling to exercise.

Mike (again),
Our founders made amendments very difficult to get passed, and thank god for that.
I agree 100% with your sentiment on that. And, surprisingly, considering my semi-committed opposition to SSM, I agree with you in exactly the context you meant it.

But they did make amendments tough for a reason, yes...and yet, that difficulty doesn't justify making an end-run around the process to get what you want. Things that are done slowly with supermajorities tend to be more correct and more lasting than things done by a handful of judges in a manner contrary to the will of the majority.

And before "civil rights" rears its ugly head: remember that our govt was lagging behind society at every point of the civil rights movement. The majority wanted the changes, and supported them.

If you can't convince a majority that your view is correct, maybe it's not correct. Maybe it is, yes....but maybe it isn't, is all I'm saying.

“Which is clearly (illegal) descrimination based on SEX”

Actually, its is discrimination based upon gender. But, clearly, the problem is with the sex.

Max,

Thanks. Do you think yours is the position taken by a majority of gay marriage supporters?

By my last sentence ("closing the door behind you", etc.) I meant to point out that it undermines the "equal protection" argument if you take the position that gay marriage should be allowed, but not same-sex straight marriage, etc.

My impression has been that many gay couples insist on marriage (as opposed to civil unions) because of the value inherent in an exclusive definition of marriage. To "one man and one woman" they want to add just "two men or two women who have a sexaul relationship" but not just any two folks who want to benefit from the state sanction of married status. To open the doors that wide would render "marriage" relatively meaningless, and consequently diminish its value for gay couples.

But I could have the wrong impression, which is why I ask.

Either way, I do think if the "equal protection" argument is to hold up, the expanded definition of marriage would at least have to include anyone at all (of age) who wishes to marry.

That's the position you take, so by my lights you are consistent. I just wonder if yours is the more common advocacy approach.

Matt:

My /guess/ is that the majority of gay marriage supporters have the position I do, but I actually have no idea, because I don't get out much.

nathan, I don't know what point of yours that I have proved...but the statute doesnt say ANYTHING about orientation. The whole point is that the langauage of the statute discriminates based on gender and gender alone. Which according to the constitution of the state is illegal. In fact, it would be perfectly legal for the state legislature to write a law saying gays cant get married, because sexual preference is NOT a protected class.

(Of course, that would be completely unenforceable, since they would then have to define gay in terms of...you guessed it...GENDER. Which would be illegal in and of itself. But thats another story.)

I'm sorry if the logic escapes you, but it's really not difficult.

patrick,

I think an underlying presupposition of your (interesting and logical) point is that the state defines marriage as opposed to merely recognizing it.

If marriage "is what it is" (one man and one woman) and the state merely recognizes that, then the state is not excluding anyone based on who or what they are, but on what marriage is.

Mike Silverman,

I know Ron Greer very well. We work out at the same fitness center. Nobody I know in Wisconsin politics thinks he a buffoon, and I've lived here since 1976 and am heavily involved in politics.

Ron Green is that best of all possible candidates for us Republicans. I black man who is also a hard core conservative, and a strong and eloquent opponent of the power-seeking homosexual agenda in this country. Even without getting into the topic of Tammy Greer's homosexuality, I watched Ron Greer rip to shreds his middle-of-the-road Republican pre-primary opponent in a debate in 2002. He has stage presence, lots of street-based knowledge of realworld, and is not afraid to take on the establishment. That's why he won the primary election in 2002, and that's why he probably will do so again in 2004, if there is an opposing Republican candidate.

I will do everything that I can to help him. Why?

1) I like Ron Greer as a man and as a friend. I was able once to learn more from him about the problems of raising stable families in the black communities of America, than I ever got from two university degrees and a whole bunch of my white-man assumptions. And I think he will make a first-class congressman.

2) I want to see us Republicans do what we can to split the usually solid vote that the Democrats get from the African-American communities around here. I see Tammy Baldwin's overt homosexuality as exactly the lever to accomplish that.

3) Just as a political experiment, I want to see to what degree the political backlash against the legalization of homosexual marriages in the Massachusetts court can be used to mobilize elements of the Republican base vote that we sometimes have a hard time getting to the polls.

Am I a political opportunist? You bet your ass I am. Because politics is about winning, and I'm not interested in serving half-ass candidates who stand for nothing but getting a well-paid job at public expense.

Do I have anything personal and special against homosexuals? Not really. If I thought the gun owners among us could exploit them politically to help pass the long-awaiting concealed carry law in this state, I would work to involve them as Republicans. But they consistently vote against us on gun issues, even though personal protection from legally-carried firearms are in their interest, things being what they are in this country. So what's the point of working with them if they always involve themselves in Democrat causes and for Democrat candidates?

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Everybody: I didn't mean to mis-name our congresswoman "Tammy Greer". Her name actually is "Tammy Baldwin", as most of you probably know. This, along with numerous typos, is what happens writing screeds onscreen without benefit of MS Word.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Because politics is about winning

If that were the case, you wouldn't be supporting a far-right former fireman with an anger management problem running for Congress in a district which includes one of the most liberal cities in America.

Last time, Baldwin beat Greeg 66% to 34%

(http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2002/pages/states/WI/H/02/race.html)

It won't be any different in 2004. Next time you are spotting Greer over at the bench press station, maybe you can pass along that URl to him.

Mike Silverman,

You missed a major part of the point I was trying to make. From my gun owner/establishment Republican point of view, splitting off a large unber of black voters from the Democrat coalition of minorities is a major objective and as such, is far more important than winning or losing an election to a single congressional seat in around a liberal stronghold such as Madison. Greer as a candidate is exactly the kind of lever that will help accomplish that.

As for the 65-35 vote results for Baldwin and Greer in 2002. It was hardly surprising. The whole effort was sort of a guerilla war campaign against the establishment. Those of us in the Republican Party of Dane County (RPDC) worked our asses off on behalf of Ron Greer, along with a number of hard rightwing white activists from all around the Wisconsin 2nd Congressional District. But Greer had little help from the Republican Party of Wisconsin and none at all from the Republican National Committee. Maybe these folks thought he would disappear back into the political woodwork. But we are going to show them this year that Ron Greer will be our candidate again, because he will beat anyone they are in position to put up against him in a primary election. And there is isn't much they can do about us, because they need our help on all kinds of other campaigns, and we are here locally with our networks, whereas they are not here. Simple as that.

So maybe he will lose again in 2004. Maybe by a lot less than in 2002. But maybe -- just maybe -- we will be able to galvanize a whole new army of conservative white folks to vote in a black man to help get rid of their congressional lesbian. You never can tell until the votes are counted.

When you are pushing something like shall-issue concealed carry permit laws, you learn short-term political patience on behalf of a long-term political goal. And so we are patient, Mike. We are patient.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Ron Greer should stay out of people's bedrooms, and Tammy Baldwin should stay out of people's wallets.

Supporting either one is indefensible.

Patrick,
Perhaps we are not arguing the same thing. In any case, your statement I'm sorry if the logic escapes you, but it's really not difficult. is both condescending and utterly inconsequential to this discussion. I assure you I fully understand everything that is being discussed here. Unfortunately, "Understanding" does not equate to "Agreeing".
"Disagreeing" also does not equate to "opression" or "phobia" or "stifling dissent" or "stupidity" or anything else people try to imply to avoid addressing specific issues.

I have my opinions. They are carefully considered and based on extensive observation of human nature, training in clinical approaches to behavior modification, numerous discussions, and above-average intelligence. I credit equal attributes to my opponents and try to discuss from the viewpoint that different people might view identical information from different viewpoints and value different things. It irritates, frustrates, and saddens me when I am not accorded the same respect, and am told I do not have the right to my opinion, or am too stupid, biased, or simply incapable of understanding someone else's point of view. I'll get over it, sure, but you do your position no good.

Those of you who did not want this vast reaction against you to occur should have remained in the closet with your homosexuality, rather than stirring up the visceral feelings of the straight heterosexual permanent majority by so openly pushing for something that so obviously threatens the validity of normal male-female marriage, and that, even worse, oculd open the door to forced recognition of the repulsive acts of even worse breeds of sexual perverts such as pedophiles.

I am not gay, but it is in my self-interest to support the rights of others.

How do gay marriages threaten the validity of traditional marriages? I’m getting married – I’m doing it because I love Melissa, and that wouldn’t change even if every other couple on the planet was gay.

Do you mean to say that your marriage would be undermined by gay marriages?

Pedophiles violate the rights of children! Children, by definition, are not able to make responsible choices about anything (which is why they have parents or legal guardians). So, when pedophiles do their thing, they are raping children.

And so we are patient, Mike. We are patient.

You might have the patience of Job, but you still will never see the day a kook like Greer is able to win an election.

I thought only left-wing Greens enjoyed going down to "noble" defeat year after year, but I guess I am wrong.

Thank you, Mr. Silverman -- 34 state legislatures passed DOMAs, 3 states passed DOMA by referendum.
Next question: of the remaining 13 states, how many have had DOMAs introduced in the legislature, and not passed? To make the point clear, can you really be confident that, out of those 13 states whose legislatures haven't spoken, 10 or more would reject the FMA? Given the state of popular opinion, _I_ wouldn't bet on it.

Michael, public opinion is pretty strongly AGAINST the proposed constitutional amendment. There are a lot of people who are against same-sex marriage but do not feel the issue is serious enough to take the step of amending the Constitution over.

Arnold Harris wrote:
"This, along with numerous typos, is what happens writing screeds onscreen without benefit of MS Word."

If you had the typing skills of Steven Malcolm Anderson, you'd make a lot more typos all the time! Many, many more!

nathan,

I'm not sure what you are arguing, but the point that I have issue with is this "Or, maybe it would be better if you guys would get a little introspection and stop trying to slam dunk the debate with your narrow-minded assumptions that homosexual marriage is already a right that is being denied.
Maybe it is.
You've utterly failed to provide any evidence other than overheated rhetoric. You've convinced only yourselves."

I provided the specific references that explain rather clearly why this is not the case with the Masachusetts ruling. To review:
1. The legislature passed an amendment saying no discrimination based on sex. 2. The legislature passed a law that discrimated based on sex. 3. The court said you can't do that. Now it up to the legislature to decide what is next...deal with it, or amend the constitution.

If you believe they should amend the constitution, that's fine. That's your moral viewpoint and you are entitled to it...but please don't confuse that with a legality of the current situation. Whether they intended to or not, the legislature of Massachusetts created the right in 76.

(And please cut the crap about 'respect' for others viewpoints...need I remind you that you have already compared me to the Klan and Hitler.)

And Matt...
Unfortunately, marriage is not simply 'recognized' by the gov, but regulated. And since it is entangled with the government (providing certain rights, privileges, immunities, responsibilities etc.) it must also be defined in specific legal terms. Otherwise, every individual could simply define it however they liked (man-woman, man-man, man-dog, etc.) I don't know if this is good or bad...but it is.

Patrick wrote:
"(man-woman, man-man, man-dog, etc.)"

Hmmm.... Extremely interesting. A spectrum? From a Sapphist point of view, this could constitute a hierarchy, thus:

woman-woman (Sappho)

man-woman

man-man

man-dog (Santorum)

Steven,

What exactly is your point on the subject matter of John Kerry and the Mass. Court issue. You seem to go on and on and on and on and off tangents here, there and everywhere. Is it just that you despise everyone and their opinion particularly if it doesn't match your pet ideas ?

Can you answer that in three or fewer sentences ?

I have made possibly 10 comments on this Dean's World. I don't have a lot of opinions but you go on and on and on. I cannot figure out why.

My only point is, I think the Mass. Court screwed up. Rosemary and Dean seem to think so as well but perhaps for different reasons.

So I'm just asking. I'm just a person in front of a monitor with a keyboard. Who I am isn't important.

So I just thought I'd ask.

Max Harris,

You asked whether heterosexual marriages such as most of us have, and the one you are about to undertake, would be threatened by legalization of homosexual marriages, and if so, in what way.

I will answer that in terms of standards and the values they imply. A marriage -- a real marriage -- is a representation of a specific standard, that of the basic unit of a family, without which, the perpetuation -- to say nothing of the advance -- of human society, is impossible. Parents without children and children without parents are equally the negation of the societal perpetuation and its implied continuity. Although I would not claim that we, as thinking animals -- exist merely to breed children, I am sure you would agree that children cannot be appropriately prepared for adulthood without the nurturing of such a standard family: one mother, one father, possibly grandparents, possibly siblings. Such is the hopefully loving cocoon of human society. All human societies. And as we grow older, each of us in turn, we measure our accumulated wealth not merely in terms of bank deposits, tax-sheltering annuities, real estate, university degrees or the ownership of an independent business. But more importantly, our knowledge that each of us has place amid a network of familial relationships.

But a homosexual marriage is merely a pale fakery of that real family. Barren because it cannot lead to the birth of children. According to your standards as expressed here, you would treat pedophilia as a crime against innocent children. If that is so, one cannot imagine you would award custody of children to a pair of homosexuals playing house, which means playing family. Because by any objective standard, that would imply the impetus toward a pedophilic relationship.

Therefore, any such homosexual relationship -- even if it involves the growth of deep-seated affection and probably even true love between these two persons of the same sex -- can never be more than a friendship or perhaps a business partnership. In short, it must be a barren relationship. And in essence, for any such relationship to be termed a "marriage" must therefore degrade the value of that word as applied to a real marriage and a real family as has been practiced for the 50,000 years or more of prehistoric and recent history.

Among the very basics of the philosophy of objectivism, as I understand it, is that standards must be rigorously guarded and defended from efforts to water them down. Otherwise they become ersatz standards, to use the appropriate German term, in other words, pale reflections of the real thing. Like fake coffee, medical placebos, or fake coins. A is always A, B is always B, as the objectivists would say. Otherwise descriptive terms have no objective meanings.

And that, therefore, is the true threat that legalization of homosexual marriages imply to those of us who have real marriages. If this novelty takes place in human society, and if Americans are compelled by courts of law to accept them as valid, they will in the end reduce the value of your marriage, of the marriage of your own parents, and the wreckage will be permanent. Just as the debased coinage of a wrecked country or a wrecked economy rarely through history has been put back on a sound basis. Nobody trusts such a currency ever again. Either as a standard or as a medium of exchange.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Thank you. You're one of the few that get it and express it well. I'm appreciative. And I am one also that believes a child deserves parents, one of each gender in a family and anything less than that is defeatist to marriage and children.
Unfortunately, the Mass. court has another agenda under the guise of progress.

Catch 22:

I like reading other people's views here and expressing my own. That's the way I am.

"Is it just that you despise everyone and their opinion particularly if it doesn't match your pet ideas ?"

Yes. ha! ha! ha! ha!

Oh, and, by the way, Rosemary, Dean told me to give you this message:

HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL GOOD!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL!!!!

That's how Dean feels about you.

"The assinine argument that 'I can't control my desires' in utter BULLSHIT. The essence of maturity and civilization is the ability to successfully control your own desires. If you cannot, you have no right to call yourself civilized or mature. Self-denial is an essential element of civil society, without which civil society could not exist. We would be reduced to a Darwinian state of brute survival, like the animals. What are you, animals or men? Grow up!"

Scott, you're slushing things together here that I can't believe you don't see are different. One thing to remember is that the "We can't help it" argument began as a response to a specific charge: that homosexuals like going around smashing institutions for the fun of it. (When you have activists throwing condoms during church services and otherwise comporting themselves like fools, it's not an unfair charge to make, of course--I know that.) It was a point that was equal to the level to which the debate had progressed at the time.

I can't see inside anyone else's head, but I think that when most of us use it nowadays, it's shorthand for all kinds of things that are hard to tease out in words. Squelching an instinct toward promiscuity isn't the only thing that makes you remain faithful to your wife, after all; you also have a back-brain instinct to care for her as the mother of your children, you're pulled to her by your mating instinct, and you've been acculturated to bond with her as life partners. You choose to go with one instinct over another, even when it doesn't feel like the stronger one, because your mental superstructure tells you it's the right thing to do and because there are rewards for it later.

At the same time, even if you don't go around seducing every good-looking girl who crosses your path--very civic-minded, and I congratulate you--you presumably don't feel dirty-minded because you notice how attractive they are. Other people's sexiness is part of what makes the world feel alive with possiblities. It's energizing, even when you don't go the whole way and think, "That delivery guy's hot--maybe I'll go over and do something about it." And then there's the whole range of emotional responses that don't have to do with actually doing it, necessarily, but determine the way you partner. When guys get angry or tender or purposeful, there's a...I don't know, it's manful but it's also boyish...way that they get that I respond to. It's not that I don't have the protective instinct toward women: one of my colleagues is pregnant, and believe me, I've had to fight the urge to replace every piece of junk food she eats with a pile of carrot sticks as much as the straight people in the office. And I'm as close to my women friends from college as to my men friends. I find it very moving that they're all marrying opposite-sex partners and building their lives around them, and I stayed awake through biology class and understand that whatever contribution my life makes to civilization won't be through reproduction, but I simply don't have that urge towards women. At all.

So while you're not under any obligation to sympathize, when you talk about controlling urges, realize that to me--a lot of us--it's like being asked, for the sake of the Borg, to tamp down all the impulses and interactions that make us feel part of the rich, forward-looking, kaleidoscopic world around in the first place. It's not, "Do the right thing by not screwing around on your wife, and your reward will be a sense of fidelity to your household and a better relationship with her and your children," or, "You dedicated your life to contemplating God and His glory, and you knew from the start that abjuring sex was part of the necessary focus of your attention." It reads more like, "Suppress all your instincts through sheer willpower, or you might cause ripples in others' own sense of self, and we've decided that would be bad for the hive." I know that I'm not dealing with the full range of moral and ethical arguments about homosexuality here, but the "We can't help it argument" does surface quite a bit, and for what it's worth, that's where I think it comes from.

Arnold Harris writes re: lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin:

"And the man we are running against her is a conservative black, Ron Greer, who is overwhelmingly respected in local right-wing circles. Don't think for a minute that won't help our man split the Democrat base vote in our black communities around here."

Arnold, I worked on Tammy Baldwin's last campaign against Ron Greer (who got fired from the Madison Fire Department for handing out anti-gay literature on City time), and he got his ass handed to him on a platter, even with the support of rural conservatives. Dream on.

patrick, above:

"Unfortunately, marriage is not simply 'recognized' by the gov, but regulated. And since it is entangled with the government (providing certain rights, privileges, immunities, responsibilities etc.) it must also be defined in specific legal terms. Otherwise, every individual could simply define it however they liked (man-woman, man-man, man-dog, etc.) I don't know if this is good or bad...but it is."

Thanks, patrick. Your earlier point was that the state's regulations regarding marriage were discriminatory based on sex (denying a man the right to do something he could do, if only he were a woman, and vice versa). An interesting point, but one that holds up only if one assumes that in regulating marriage, the state is actually establishing what marriage is rather than designing how the laws of the state dovetail with a pre-existing societal institution.

In the latter case, courts can rule and assemblies can legislate, but the change desired by the aggrieved parties will still only come as society itself makes up its mind. Impatience with that societal process leads many to seek judicial or legislative definitions of reality istaead of waiting for laws to reflect and solidify sufficiently-developed societal consensus. This is true not just of gay marriage advocates but of numerous interests across the political/societal spectrum.

The societal concept of marriage does discriminate in favor of a certain type of relationship. This is offensive to some. But the exclusivity is also what gives the institution value. As you imply, marriage becomes less meaningful if anybody can marry anyone or anything they want.

But that's where courtroom-oriented arguments about discrimination and equal protection will take us.

Scott Marris writes:

"Homosexuality is NOT something someone is. It is something someone does. It is an action, not a state of being."

If true, that means that heterosexuality is nothing but an action as well and has absolutely nothing to do with who you are. It merely a biological function of sticking penis in vagina and mixing reproductive cells for the purpose of propagating the species. There is no emotional, spiritual, or religious component to it, other than those fantasies you use to weave a cloth of respectability around that which is nothing more than the sloshing around of bodily fluids in the womb.

In short, Scott, if the love (and desire) I feel for my male partner has nothing to do with who I am as a person, if the life we have together is this complex ruse we've built to justify the trajectories of our genitalia, then any coupling between yourself and a woman is no better.

Scott Harris continues:

"We could discuss people's proclivities all day long. But regardless of proclivity, people are responsible for their actions. Homosexuals argue that they just can't help it. BULLSHIT. They made a choice to walk the path of the homosexual lifestyle. I can defend their right to make the choice without endorsing it."

Love is not a proclivity. I invite you to stop cheapening my romantic and family life. Doing the dishes for someone, making them supper, massaging their feet after a hard day and sharing finances have NOTHING to do with these so-called "actions" you would reduce me to.

Homosexual *desire* is not a choice. We do not choose to whom we are attracted. *Acting* upon that desire is a choice, and I uphold my right to act upon my desire with whichever adult, consenting man I choose -- and to enter into a loving relationship, an interdependent household, and a full life.

If you were capable of seeing homosexuals as more than dicks in asses and bumping pussies, maybe we'd feel less grossed out by *you*.

I know Rosemary hates the use of the word "bigot" but I don't know what other word in our language more accurately describes the hateful, ignorant, and puerile opinions of Arnold Harris.

Mike,

I think you are smart enough to find many apt adjectives to describe your feelings of Arnold's position. ;-)

Is my marriage not a real marriage until I have children?

The essential feature of a marriage is that two people* love one another very deeply. It's a formal event and continuing commitment that symbolizes the greatest love someone can have for another person. People who are truly married don't want to leave each other (unless one or both parties change in a way that they significantly lose virtue/value), and would do anything to retain their (valuable) spouse.

A marriage, then, has nothing essentially to do with children. Many people get married, have children, and get divorced even while their children are very young. Obviously, two divorced parents couldn't be considered as "married" because they share a child.

--

You are as much capable of being a pedophile as I am, or as a homosexual is. By your logic, you and I have a proclivity to molesting female children, simply because we are male and heterosexual. (And let's not forget our history of intimate sexual relationships with adult women.)

The requirement of both sexes to be present to sire children is quickly becoming biologically unnecessary. In-vitro fertilization works, and will some day be refined so that children conceived in this manner are completely normal. Artificial insemination is not new either. Human cloning is still incredibly controversial, but has a ton of benefits for humanity (life extension, among others). And for gay men who want children (but don't want to adopt them) it'll work very well.

There are probably many cases of adoption, and I've been told stories of men who are biological fathers, but enter into gay relationships.

--

I think that the traditional family structure is appealing (and works well) enough that it will remain the dominant means for human reproduction for a very, very long time. It doesn’t bother me that other people lead their lives in a different way, and their existence certainly would not cause me to do anything differently!

What people do with their lives is their own choice. As long as homosexuals (or heterosexuals) are not abusing children, they have a right to do whatever they want, because no rights are being violated.

* My aforementioned "two or more" comment was somewhat in jest, but is still valid as a political conclusion.

John Kusch,

Now, why does it not surprise me that a Madison WI homosexual would not work hard to elect and re-elect a practicing homosexual to the US Congress from the 2nd congressional district of Wisconsin? Along with a vast outpouring of money from homosexual individuals and communities all over the United States? Well, that's democracy, and it's your right to do just that.

But it is the right of us right-wingers to oppose you, using our equivalent of the same tactics.

Will we beat you this year, John? Probably not. But that is not what is significant about this particular campaign or this particular year.

We are in the middle of a cultural war all across this country. Some of us, including me, are in this for our gun rights. We would have preferred to find some gun-loving homosexuals to support us over issues such as the recent round 2 of what has become the annual Wisconsin personal protection act, in which we lost the override of Governor Doyle's veto by a single vote in the state assembly. But your crowd always votes with the anti-gunners, even though, ultimately, America's homosexuals are one of the communities threatened by personal disarmement. Ask the relatives of Mathew Shepard. So exactly why should we not work to tear your people out of public office? Everything in politics is quid pro quo, and that includes you folks as well.

Right now, the Massachusetts supreme court, in striking down a state ban against recognition of homosexual marriage, has left us an opening wide enough to sail the battleship USS Wisconsin through it (complete with escort destroyers). You think we won't take advantage of that? It could well be one of Bush's long suits against Massachusetts Kerry in the presidential election this year.

Ron Greer is a Christian, and he takes this sin and holiness stuff very seriously. I believe in nothing at all, including theories such as "sin" and fairy tales such as "souls". But I know a hot political firebrand when I see it, and I will use it for my purposes and for issues I support, especially gun rights.

Did Greer get trounced in the last election? Of course he did. He got virtually no help from the establishment Republicans. And how much more help he will get from them this year is difficult to say. But if we work at it long enough, we think we can mobilize people to pull Tammy out of office. (Unless, of course, she chooses to reverse course and support us on the gun rights issue.)

But in any case, I am sure Greer will win the Republican primary against any other comers this year. Because he is the only Republican willing to take on Tammy on the issue of her overt homosexuality. And he is black. One day, we will be able to turn this combination to political advantage. Because if you want to win against the tide in politics, you have to be willing to pick away at certain issues as if they were scabs, just to get the blood flowing.

My personal agenda? I want every law-abiding adult resident of the United States to be armed. And I want all of these people to reach political self-awareness. And with that, unity of purpose to maintain those rights. And to achieve that, with that, organizing them into the biggest political action committee in the history of this country. A political party of our own, you might say. And in the end, that is exactly what we are going to make of the National Rifle Association, when we grow it large enough. And those of you who resist us will in fact help us grow by doing that. Because without perceived enemies to cause people to unite against, no sustained poltical action action is possible.

We already have 46 out of 50 states with personal protection (concealed carry laws). We think we will be able to rip 2-3 more anti-gunners out of the state assembly in this year's election, which will kill Doyle's next veto if he insists on that. But we intend to be America's 47th state with the right of citizens to arm themselves for purposes of personal protection.

Somewhere along the road, we want -- and will get -- a federal reciprocity law standardizing these personal protection laws, more or less the way driver and vehicle licensing are similarly treated.

To achieve this single-minded set of goals, I -- and people like me -- will ally with anyone who can help us. They can be homosexual, straight, black, white, Latino, Jewish, Christian, young, old, female, urban, rural, anything and anyone.

But if they work against us or betray us, then we will count them as enemies, and work to remove them from positions of power and influence, nationally, statewide or local.

I have said before, openly, that I am a political opportunist. And I revel in just that description. So go ahead and call me any names you want.

You may be interested in learning that one of my kids is an objectivist in the community around UW-Madison. He believes in no government recognition or control of marriage at all. So he has no problem with the issue of homosexual vs straight marriage. But that's him, not me. And he, like you, is entitled to his opinion and the right to act on it.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold Harris:

"We would have preferred to find some gun-loving homosexuals to support us over issues such as the recent round 2 of what has become the annual Wisconsin personal protection act, in which we lost the override of Governor Doyle's veto by a single vote in the state assembly. But your crowd always votes with the anti-gunners, even though, ultimately, America's homosexuals are one of the communities threatened by personal disarmement. Ask the relatives of Mathew Shepard."

You've degenerated from Realpolitik into cynical pragmatism. How interesting for you to bemoan homosexuals' failure to back people like yourselves who are in favor of gun rights, since it's in our best interests to protect ourselves. The fact is, we vote against your end of the political spectrum as an act of self-defense more profound and ultimately successful than pointing a gun.

If the right had done more to assimilate gay and lesbian Americans and less to marginalize, stigmatize and criminalize them, we wouldn't be seeing such a strong anti-conservative backlash in the gay community. We remember what the right tried to do to us, from Reagan on, and it's going to take decades of conservative ass-kissing to win us back.

Pucker up, pal. Quid pro quo.

"Homosexuality is NOT something someone is. It is something someone does. It is an action, not a state of being."

That statement is a mile wide and a nanometer deep or less, and absolutely false. Mechanistic, reductionistic, behavoristic, animalistic, and atheistic in the complete sense.

Sex is what I _am_. It goes to the core of my innermost being. I am a _man_ (though not a man's man). My maleness, my manliness, defines who I am. I am drawn to the curvaceous, encircling pulchritude of Woman (and therefore of the Lesbian). My love for the female defines who I am. Sex is attraction, desire, longing, fantasy, passion, love, every bit as much as it is the final ecstatic consummation of that attraction, desire, fantasy, passion, love. I can be intensely, deeply, highly sexual even without _ever_ having physically consummated my sexuality. Sex is a union of body with body, but it is also a union of body with soul, of soul with soul, and with the Divine.

"The degree and kind of one's sexuality reaches up to the very pinnacle of one's spirit." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Unfortunately, John (Kusch), what you think Reagan "did" to you is most likely inaccurate.

He was never anti-gay, had many gay friends, and never came out against gay civil rights legislation.

The only smack at Reagan that makes any sense at all is the claim that he ignored the AIDS crisis when it was still mostly just infecting gay men. Of course, the exact same thing could be said of local, state, and federal officials at all levels of government and in both major parties.

And if that's about the best you can come up with for something he "did" to you guys, you ought to ask yourself why you so unquestioningly believe whatever the people in the radical gay press spout about, and actually start investigating the facts for yourself.

A great place to start is Randy Shilts' book "And The Band Played On." Not that attrocious movie they made of it a few years ago, and long after Shilts' death. It was a ridiculous, slanted, partisan movie, and Shilts likely would never have supported what they did to his book--wherein he witheringly criticizes Reagan, but also witheringly critices literally dozens of Democratic and Republican politicians, health officials, and a large number of gay activists--yes, gay activists, some of whom he rightly blamed for preventing politicians for taking the epidemic seriously.

Because they did, you know. Gay activists were gay people's worst enemy in the early days of the plague. Funny how that gets swept under the carpet so much these days.

Another good one is Radical Son by David Horowitz. Of course, it's a long book, but there are two chapters where Horowitz describes his meetings with Shilts, with gay Republicans in San Francisco, and many others in the early days of the plague.

Besides, John, isn't it just about time that you admit that no amount of "ass kissing" will ever make you happy, becuase you're really just a rage addict? It's sure as hell how you come across, anyway.

Oh, and by the way? I will say it again: you personally don't need to support Republicans, but gay people in general are being complete self-destructive fools if they don't start doing more to support moderate Republicans who can help drive the Republican party away from anti-gay radicalism. But you can't do that if all you do is call them names and generalize irresponsibly about them.

Because, and this is an absolute, undeniable truth: America always has been and always will be a two-party system, and if you tie your fate to one of the two political parties, then your fate rises and falls with that party's fate. That may seem very romantic and give you much cause to feel self-righteous, but it's a dangerous, destructive game.

Republicans don't need to go to gay people; they've proven that they don't need them to win. But if gay people go to Republicans and show them that their votes matter and can be won, Republicans have solid reasons (other than pity) to support gay people.

Otherwise, Republicans have no reason whatsoever to care about them or their issues. Whether you find that "moral" or not is immaterial. Politicds is about getting votes, period. If all you're going to do is bash them, slander them, give one-sided accounts of their sins, they have no reason (other than, I suppose, pity) to be nice to you at all.

Well, John. Dean is entirely correct in what he told you here, and told it to you a lot more politely than I could have or would have done.

You seriously think the rightwing pro-gun folks have to kiss the asses of the homosexual community for votes and political support, and not the other way around? Look around you, John. We've already got the fastest growing political movement(s) in the United States, and the state-by-state concealed carry issue, with its promise to arm women with equalizers, is ending much of the gender-based orientation of gun ownership and providing us vast new political muscle.

In the meantime, where's your army? A lot of them died in the great 1980s GRIDs (excuse me, "AIDS") epidemic, including one of my own cousins. You think you are growing many replacements from childhood? Just because the Madison Metropolitan School District wastes taxpayer money on hiring specialists to come into the schools to chirp homothink like "Heather Has Two Mommies" at their underage captive audiences, don't imagine for a moment that very many people outside your community want to emulate your "lifestyle", if that's how you want to identify it. The best you can over expect, and the most you will ever get, is just some tolerance while people divert their minds from what you folks do in your own bedrooms.

And all your talk about your election victories in and around Madison WI? Hell man, on the larger statewide scene all over Wisconsin, or the US as a whole, that's just whistling while you walk past the political graveyard.

The fact is, pal, your kind attached themselves to the wrong side of the political spectrum. And in the end, all they'll get for that mistake is fighting with the other minorities for who gets what size portion of crummy little morsels from the inside owners of the Democrat party.

And maybe you don't think these Democrat bigwigs mock you guys and resent your presence in their party and their dependence on you? They're still heterosexual, you know. In the end, what do you really get from them, except to be the homosexual who sits by the door?

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold:

I'd rather be sitting by the door than shining your shoes. Again, you reduce us to what we do in the bedroom. You and your ilk will never see us as full human beings. The fact that you can't see what you can't see about us doesn't make it less true. The Republican party gives aid and comfort to those organizations most inimical to the well-being of gay and lesbian people. Until that changes, there's no deal. Not that you want us anyway.

And if you think that we have to "grow" new homosexuals, you're beneath debate.

Dean:

I'm not a rage addict. My rage is justified and in response to some very real events in the real world. The fact that those events did not touch you personally gives you no right to minimize my experience.

You don't ask questions, you hand down judgements. Liberal my ass.

And thank you for picking and choosing what you wanted to believe having read Randy Shilts. Did you read "Conduct Unbecoming" about gays in the military?

I agree with you that gay people are their own worst enemies in regards to AIDS. But your pointing that out doesn't exactly erase decades of Republican rhetoric -- spoken at their CONVENTIONS -- that marginalizes, demonizes and dehumanizes gay and lesbian people. What you call my overreaction just might be your underreaction.

It's going to take exactly one question to reveal your gay-people-need-to-come-to-us conservative bullshit as the bullshit it is:

Why will so few Republican politicians even *meet* with the Log Cabin Republicans (the national gay/lesbian Republican organization), much less add their constituent-specific concerns to the agenda?

Here's why: we aren't wanted. It's like slamming a door in someone's face and then saying, "But why didn't you just come right in?"

Conservatives can *say* gay people are welcome, but they sure don't act like it.

How about a little humor?

Q - What is is the definition of confused?

A - Arnold Harris at a shotgun same-sex wedding!

Actually, a serious question for Arnold: if the political fairy godmother came to you and said that she would make it so that universal concealed carry and true respect for the 2nd Amendment became the law of the land, but there would also be legal same-sex marriages....would you tell her to "just do it?"

Sure thing, Mike. I told you once before that all you folks represent to people like me are one of two things: Either allies in our fight for our constitutional rights, or electoral targets of opportunity in the political wars to take those rights the hard way in the coming cultural wars of this country. I don't speak for all the gun owners. But I'm one of them, and I know our mentality like you know the mentality of your friends.

What we really want is universal concealed carry as the law of the land, along with equally universal respect for the 2nd amendment rights of individual citizens. Plus the organizational power to make certain these rights are never again stripped away. And we will the market price for all that, Mike. Including compromise with other people's issues.

Now about you guys? You want something equally monumental from us? Then you better find some way to make sure that fairy godmother you are talking about is a lesbian. Because in politics, you only get what you pay the price for. You don't pay the price; you get nothing.

You and your friends do understand that, don't you, Mike? We know exactly what we want, and we are going to get it. What about your crowd? Do you know exactly what you want and how you expect to go after it?

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Okay, maybe i'm a naive liberal, but what's the fuss over universal conceal-carry? geez, you gun nuts think WE'RE obsessed with a single issue.

by the way I am not anti- gun rights, but lets just be sensible here...

I.T., I agree with most everything you say, but on this point...concealed carry keeps the police and other government forces from being able to behave like an occupying army rather than servants of the citizens. Also, in a country with lots of rural areas and in which freedom of movement is unrestricted in ways that don't come home to you until you travel in more police-statish places, it's unrealistic to expect immediate help if threatened by criminals no matter where you are. I'd also mention that whole Constitution thing, but the debates over how to interpret that one sentence quickly become tiresome shouting matches.

BTW, before anyone gets any ideas that I'm making nice with the Mt. Horeb delegation, let me hasten to add that I'm instead siding with my mother, whom--as the owner of two handguns--it would be unwise, if not mortally dangerous, to contradict on this issue.

"What we really want is universal concealed carry as the law of the land."

Terrific. Let's issue hand weapons for prisoners for their self protection while in prison and issue all paroles' their pistol of choice on exit.

Nothing like a little do it yourself safety for the citizenry.

By the way,

John Kerry still opposes Gay Marriage.

“I support equal rights, and the right of people to have civil union, equal partnership rights. I don't support marriage. I never have. That's my position," he added.”

"I personally believe the court is not right," Kerry told reporters.

"if the political fairy godmother came to you and said that she would make it so that universal concealed carry and true respect for the 2nd Amendment became the law of the land, but there would also be legal same-sex marriages....would you tell her to "just do it?""

If we had those two things, I'd think I'd died and went to Heaven.

About guns: Sean Kinsell said it all. A free people is an armed people. And, conversely, a disarmed people is an enslaved people, or a people ripe for slavery.

"Children, by definition, are not able to make responsible choices about anything"

Until recently, marriage, BY DEFINITION, was a union of a man and a woman.
Which answers my next quesion: If an amendment of 1976 made it so clear that gay marriage must be legal, HOW COME THE COURT DIDN'T REALIZE THAT FOR SO LONG?

By the way, when people "get married", what do they do that can't be done without the state's permission?
Besides getting benefits, I mean. Isn't this all about money?

Sean, I have no problem with gun ownership, but it makes me nervous to think that everyone in downtown Big City USA could be packing iron on the street.

I also have no problem with Kerry being against gay marriage (which affects me deeply but I do not view as anything near the main issue to be handled in this election!). He said I support equal rights, and the right of people to have civil union, equal partnership rights. . Great. Let's start there, since it's better than where we are.

It will be interesting to see if Cheney sticks with his equivalent viewpoint as the culture wars begin--or if he reneges into the anti- camp.

maor writes:

"By the way, when people 'get married', what do they do that can't be done without the state's permission?
Besides getting benefits, I mean. Isn't this all about money?"

This is an old question, but I never tire of answering it.

This isn't just about money. It *is* partially about money, because the legal aspect of marriage is primarily financial. The government doesn't sponsor the religious component of our marriages, only the legal and financial ones. People who say the government "encourages" people to marry are being foolish: the numbers don't add up.

This is about power of attorney, medical decisions, estate management, child custody, taxes, Fifth Amendment-esque issues (spouses cannot be compelled to testify against one another), and much more.

There are some marriage benefits that hetero couples get automatically that gay couples can mimic with the help of a lawyer, much time and expense, and a prayer or two, as such arrangements don't always hold up in court. It places a burden upon same-sex couples wishing to form a family that hetero couples are not required to carry.

The love part is outside the purview of the government, and gay marriage is about love. But the finance and legal part is within the purview of the government, and that's the part where same-sex couples are looking for acknowledgement.

Government doesn't create or sustain marriage. It merely acknowledges the institution. And the institution is changing. FMA's coast-to-coast notwithstanding, this change continues, and it's only a matter of time before the government harkens to the call.

Catch-22,

I am certain you know very well that the American pro-gun movement has no intention of allowing firearms to be possessed by felons, or anyone else without a perfectly clean record.

So I assume your comments suggesting otherwise are just a vapid attempt to act both sophomoric and precocious.

Firearms are used by citizens more than 2 million times/year for purposes of legitimate and lawful self-protection and to stop crimes where no law enforcement officer is present. That's about once every 13-20 seconds.

"Do-it-yourself" safety for the citizenry is exactly what this country needs, and exactly what they shall get. Because no man or woman is truly free, who has been disarmed by their own government.

On the other hand, no one shall require you to carry a firearm, if you do not wish to do so. But nobody shall have the privilege of telling the rest of us that we have no right to defend ourselves if we so choose.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I.T.,

If the thought of "everyone" in downtown Big City USA carrying concealed firearms makes you nervous, you must be willfully ignorant of the law in the 46 of 50 states that now issue personal protection (concealed carry) permits of one sort or another. The majority of these states are those in which any citizen with a clean record can obtain a permit merely by paying the fee, and in many states, showing some evidence of firearms handling training.

These people are doctors, lawyers, religious ministers, secretaries, computer programmers, auto mechanics, housewives, senior citizens, all races, all religions, both sexes. In short, a spectrum of America. Why are you so fixated on the notion of people armed citizens? Why are you not more concerned with the felons walking the streets of downtown USA WITHOUT such permits?

In any case, the very ubiquitousness of legally-carried firearms has in fact reduced or stabilized violent crime rates. Because predators are more afraid of armed and prepared prey than they are of police, whom they can spot before they make their move. How do we know this? There are trained sociologists who specialize in criminology and who routinely interview these predators in prisons and learn how they operate.

In any case, if the thought of armed citizens going about their business bothers you, than stay away from downtown USA and hide in your bedroom. Until the night the armed boogyman breaks in to steal your stuff while you hide there, cowering.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold Harris is absolutely right about that. I would love to see man and every woman armed as he or she walks down the streets of Big City, USA, the Asphalt Jungle. The only people who should be nervous about that are the muggers and rapists. Let them tremble in terror, I say! The only good rapist is a dead rapist. And, the beauty of concealed carry is that they never quite know who is armed and who isn't. That way, even if you, for whatever reason, choose not to carry a gun, you are protected by those who do.

Steven, you are protected as long as the people who do carry get it right

Some things that scare me about everyone carrying guns. (1) random shootings on the freeway. He cut you off? Blow him away! hey, here in Southern California, it's been know to happen. i don't think guns in the cars are helping with the shootings in ohio right now, either.

Another one: (2) say you are carrying your gun on the street. say a young woman comes at you, running, screaming that some guy is trying to rape her. Some guy is chasing her. Tempted to draw your piece and blow him away? All that adrenelin chugging through your veins...you could be the white knight...

but what if she's his daughter, blown out of her mind on drugs, and he's just trying to catch her and take her to the psych hospital.

Or what about this one. 3) some guy is running toward you with a group tearing after him. They're yelling that he attacked someone. He won't stop. Gonna shoot him? But what if the mob has got the wrong guy?

Basically I feel much better if the general public is not running around playing policeman on the streets of Big City, USA.

I got no problem with carrying a gun if you have to go off to lousy neighborhoods at midnight, or are a target because of what you do, or live rurally (although the though that rural life is so dangerous makes me think the city ain't so bad after all), or having that gun at home, I trust where your child cannot get it and shoot himself, but walking down Main Street at 3 in the afternoon, your gun makes me nervous. Or maybe not yours, so much as the not-quite-stable guy next to you.

The gun debate is like the abortion debate. Everyone is forced to the extremes--it's all or nothing! And I don't think that's true in either case.

I lived in England for many years.

Even the police don't carry guns in England.

I felt much safer there.

I.T.:

You ask some good questions. Certainly, one must be careful before making snap judgments in any situation.
I wouldn't feel safe in England today. Ever since they banned guns and self-defense, crime (burglaries, muggings, rape) have gone up, and people have been prosecuted for defending themselves. They have also had serious problems with terrorism.
But to answer your question here:

"Or what about this one. 3) some guy is running toward you with a group tearing after him. They're yelling that he attacked someone. He won't stop. Gonna shoot him? But what if the mob has got the wrong guy?"

My inclination, if anything, would to shoot down the mob. I always side with the individual against any mob.

"What we really want is universal concealed carry as the law of the land."

Arnold, I believe citizens ought to have the same advailable weapons as law enforcement. But your statement above speaks of 'concealed'
weapons for every citizen. Even US military personnel do not carry concealed weapons as a general rule. I wonder if it is appropriate for say 80,000 fans at a Super Bowl or a World Cup soccer match to be carrying concealed weapons. It seems a receipe for disaster. And I think that is why we do have law enforcement in society
even though all safety needs may not be universally adequate. I attempted to use the absurd as a rebuttal to your above statement. There was some thought behind it.

I guess what I need to do in comments is make them longer and more explanatory.

Arnold,

Let me relate a story. About 10 years ago, in California, a manager of a restrauant routinely carried a 38 pistol with him every night as a protection because he carried large amounts of cash receipts. One night
about 3 AM he is heading home on a highway is confronted by a road rage drunk driver who harasses him to no end. Finally, the manager pulls off a side road and stops. Sure enough the drunk driver comes after him, stops gets out of his car, so the manager shot the bastard dead. A fair solution to an unfair situation.

It is now five years later, the manager completes his prison term, his life in shatters, his money gone
and is now on five more years of probation. The manager did not have a concealed weapons permit but he did have a concealed weapon. He was put in jail not because he didn’t have a permit but because he killed the guy. (I think justifiably.)

Do you see the Catch 22’s here ? If he gets the permit and still shoots him he is still going to jail. If he doesn’t have the permit, he’s going to jail. If the drunk driver if a felon, he may have a weapon, if he isn’t a felon and has a concealed weapons permit and gets shot, the manager still goes to jail.

So California law’s message, the manager had no right to kill the guy even though he made every
road maneuver he could to avoid the road rage drunk .

How does your universal concealed weapons permit help him ? (The story here is true)

I forgot to add. My solution to the above dilemma.

While, the manager is in my mind justified in having the concealed weapon, what he really needed was a cell phone. That would satisfy,
his needs at that time while he was in his auto and it would have satisfied the California law.
Unfortunately cell phones were not in vogue then.

Catch 22,

Where on earth do you get the idea that anyone can