Another Activist Judge Overrules the Will of the People

What we're talking about is simply removing the requirement of 'one man, one woman' and nothing else. All of the other rules stay the same: you must be unmarried, of legal age (varies by state), supply a blood test (in some states). The 'rules' of marriage are applied to two people who meet all of the appropriate criteria.

I guess the 'line' would be for obvious things like: animals, children, siblings, etc.

Also, as a side note, since you were talking about a man marrying a 13yo boy.. I did some digging around and found some information on current age requirements by state. In some states, you could go out and marry someone who is under age with parental consent. Most of those states do put additional requirements below a certain age (i.e. Colorado - 16, Arizona - 15). If you want to marry someone under those ages in those states you have to have parental consent and a court order.

So, it appears your fears of men being able to marry 14yo kids is already a reality in some states, surprisingly.

DURR! If yuh don't like Bush, yew hate America!

No, I don't hate America, I *hate the people who connived their way into power and are now controlling it for their own ends*.

Can't you see a fucking DIFFERENCE between the two? Where the is the connect between "not being OK with being governed by religious zealots when you are not religious, not being OK with laws and policies that co-opt the rich when you're trying to get by" and having hatred for "a capitalist, representative democracy (OK OK REPUBLIC, WE KNOW) where individual freedoms are respected and ANYONE, YEAH, EVEN PEOPLE WHO AREN'T ALREADY RICH can make it."

I hate Conservatives. I don't hate America.

My gosh, I read Phelps in here and I thought something was wrong with the leader of the classic Mission: Impossible team... eeep... I am so in the wrong thread. *rolls out*

I disagree with their views. I don't mind the people.



That's either nonsense or sad, I can't decide which. If your friendships are really so shallow that they can't handle some disagreement, then they aren't much of a friendship to begin with.

I have a great number of liberal friends. Honestly probably more than conservative, at least online. The world would be a really sad place if I could only assosiate with those that felt just like me. It would be even sadder if the only way I could be 'friends' with someone is pretending I think just like them.



Ignoring the straw man and moving on...



Have you TRIED? Most of us are fine people, who are more than willing to be friends. I've found the same true on the 'other side of the row'. We really aren't that different, some political views aside. I don't eat children or anything. I just hold different views on some issues. Big farking deal.

I don't think I've ever done anything to hurt you, Michi. I've never even tried, to my knowledge. I've never called you a friend, but it's because I've never really had occasion to talk with you outside some argueing on the forums. I don't see why we couldn't be friends, though... Other than your somewhat paranoid views of conservatives, I've never seen anything you've said that has been anything I would take real exception to. Hell, I even have some to have sort of a grudging like/respect for Ulrika, and you can't get much farther from my political view than that.



Paranoid. Pure and simple. None of "us" want that. None of "us" would think of anything like that. Do I agree there are extremists who do think that way? Sure. There are liberal extremists who would love the exact oposite. But that's like saying "all muslims are evil because some are terrorists" or "All christians are evil because of the crusades"... It's nonsense.

Sorry Michi, try as you might, you aren't going to find an evil hidden agenda here. As hard as it may be for you to believe, I honestly don't hate you, or any other liberal for being liberal. Nor do I have any desire to silence you, marginalize you, or anything else.

I used to loathe this group.. sleeping with the 'enemy' and all, but after speaking with some and reading materials on thier website, I no longer think they're whacked.


There are a bunch of sins mentioned in the bible that we no longer adhere to and while following scripture might be appropriate for your personal way of life, it does not do well as a foundation for making laws. If that were the case, how would the laws truly represent all the people of the land? They wouldn't becuase people have differing faiths and beliefs.


I'm not sure where this idea that Liberalism = Hatred of America, but Ms. Coulter was one of the first people I heard mention it. The idea is so incredibly without merit it almost deserves to be passed over, but there are a lot of conservatives who have subscribed to this mentality.

As a liberal, let me tell you, Kiamat - I love my country. I love that you and I have the freedom to share our opposing views on topics without a government representative busting into our homes and arresting us. I do disagree with some of the direction that our current leaders (and past) have put us on, but that by no means implies I hate my country.

Aye, I think I understand your point now. When you initially coupled Gay marriage to child and animal marriage it suggested to me that you think they have more in common than just having marriage attached to them and being unacceptable currently. I agree on those two aspects and making it completely acceptable will change the gay marriage concept completely as it would if any other forms of marriage were accepted.

However, I think there is not a concrete reason for gay marriage to be banned. It is no more related to the other forms of banned marriage as straight marriage is. They are consenting unrelated adults and the only difference is that they are the same sex, or so I thought? If it is legal to be gay, then why is it not legal to be married? There is good reasoning for gay marriage, there is very little reasoning for not allowing it. I can not see how these other forms of marriage could be reasoned well enough to ever pass and become acceptable. It is not legal to be a pedophile or zoophile. Though, I suppose there is a small, very small, possibility and understand the fear for that.

I realize my definition of marriage is unlikely to occur, but I can dream and hope for the better. As childish as it may be.

Kiamat, do you really, honestly believe that this case wasn't heard? That the judge just woke up one morning and acted on his own? Good grief, man, please do a little research before you post things if you expect people to take you seriously.

This has been going through the courts for years! Practically ever since it was passed in November of 2000. It's been argued by both sides. Judges aren't allowed to make decisions on cases that haven't been brought before them.

Do you seriously think that liberals hate America? No, never mind, I'm not going there. Just, please, go read the Bill of Rights before you say that. You'll find we are saying much the same things now.

You are so virulent! Is it because you are losing the current argument? Or are you always so angry and full of hate?

Frankly, my family and I have considered moving to Canada, since we are on the border anyway, before the current administration (who, really, are lying to you about nearly everything they tell you, and are actually not interested in this country at all, but only in gathering as much wealth and power as they can, "whatever it takes," does literally march us off to death camps. But we love the US, so we have decided to stay and fight for her.

Let me tell you a little story. Thursday before last, one of our cats got out, and was nowhere to be found for days. We live in a mixed neighborhood. One of the houses here has 3 American flags and a life-sized statue of Jesus in their front yard. Scary place. And yet, they were as kind and helpful as anyone else when we were looking for our cat.

We have far more in common than you might think. We all, Liberals and Conservatives alike, love the US, and would like to be proud to say that we live here. We want to provide for our families. We want to be free to say what we believe, and to live our lives as we see fit.

Both sides, at this point, are living in fear that the other will erupt into violence at any moment, as we've seen in this thread. Both are scared half to death of the other. And the current administration is whipping that fear as hard as they can.

But the truth is that neither side wants war!

(And, just to set the record straight, the Democrats in Congress have approved more than 90% of Bush's judicial nominees. Far more than the Republicans approved of Clinton's. The exceptions are those who are extremists. IMHO, no extremists, of either stripe, belong in a lifetime appointment as judges. Judges must be able to listen to arguments, and decide fairly, not with iron-clad ideologies already in place.)

(And you still haven't told me what Jesus, himself, had to say about same-gender couples.)

Robin (Sojourner) Wood

To me, this is 1948 all over again.

Personally, I find the idea that they even had to take the issue of interracial marriage to the court system a very, very sad reflection on our society.

Hopefully, future generations won't think the same thing when looking back at 2005.

Mhm. You're saying that until you folks get enough laws passed that your administration will do it for you. You won't have to do the dirty work.

You people drew the line in the sand. Conservatives want liberals eradicated. Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage: your people. They all make this abundantly clear. Tell me, am I somehow not hearing the message that your people are broadcasting? It isn't a welcoming one, open to discourse. No, there's no room for that.

YOu do know about the separation of the 3 branches of government, right?

The difference is the balance of power. The Right has the power right now to completely eradicate the Left and get away with it.

If the Right declared non-Christian behavior illegal tomorrow, there isn't a thing the Left could do about it.

"Pledge allegiance to the flag, whatever flag they offer."

This *IS* what it will come to. Pretend to be Conservative and Christian, or it won't be pretty.

One of my former co-workers told me; "If you aren't Conservative now, you better be soon, because we're gonna make sure it's *real hard* to live in America if ya ain't". He chuckled at that.

Look, I can't make you believe me. It's the truth, though, regardless of if you want to hear it or not: I don't mind liberals, I don't hate them, I don't want to see them marginalized or cast out or anything of the sort. Please, stop ascribing such to me.



No, we don't. I can't say it any clearer than that. We don't.

Coulter and Savage are nuts, just like Ed Schultz on the other end of the spectrum. Limbaugh is an entertainer, has said as much many times, and is not half as bad as he is portrayed, which if people actually LISTENED to him, in CONTEXT, they would understand. Hannity is a good guy who is not at ALL what you are ascribing to conservatives, I honestly can't believe of any of them you're accusing him of this stuff. And O'Reilly is NOT a conservative in any event, he's actually fairly liberal in many of his ideas and is a self-professed independent, which is pretty much the truth if you listen to his comments.

But yes, you are 'missing it'. Sorry to have to be blunt about it, but yes, you are. You're also being very partisan-blinded: One side is good, one side is evil, therefor any actions taken by one side are ALWAYS in accord with your perception of the side in question. Or, at least, as it relates to conservatives. Anything we do is evil, by default, so even saying we aren't evil is just short hand for a more hidden evil. The truth is both parties have good things about them as well as bad things. If you cant see that, I can't even debate with you: Debate requires concession that both sides can be both right and wrong. Otherwise, what's the point?

A Conservative that I know (not a 'friend') said the following.

"It's like the superbowl. You win by one point, you still get the whole trophy."

In comparison to the 2004 election.

This is indeed the mentality. Winner takes all. Whoever wins, the country is "theirs".

This country is more divided than it has ever been, except perhaps since the Civil War.

It's 51/49 now Conservatives... but that 51 will increase and 49 will decrease as people on the 49 side get good and scared and know what's good for them. We'll never see another non-Conservative president in the US.

Will I concede? Yeah, probably. I'm angry about this, as you can tell, but I don't want to get shot, or sent off to some prison, for not being conservative and christian. Hopefully, I'll be able to tell when it's time to put on the right face, so I can continue to have -SOME- semblance of a life, even if it is working at Wal-Mart for a $2.00/hr minimum wage and living in 'serving class' housing.

I wish I could afford to. Both monetarily and politically. But I absolutely feel that if I let my guard down and say "Oh, you conservatives aren't that bad after all", that'll be the moment I'll regret when I feel a gun pressed to my back and a Conservative saying "HA! GOTCHA!"

Furthermore, I'd like to ask, how would you guys feel if that "70%" of "the people" who were for the gay marriage ban , later on down the road, were AGAINST it?

I don't think you'd be crowing about the will of the people at that point. And if it was a judge being an 'activist' towards your POV, would you fight the same fight?

No. People fight for the issues that they agree with, and generally only those. You will NEVER see outcry from conservatives over an 'activist conservative judge'. Ever. It'll never happen.

Then there isn't any point in continuing this. What can I say?

That said, I don't imagine this will really change anything... I don't much like having things like this ascribed to me. It bothers me, on the off chance anyone should actually think there was any truth in it. So I will fight it any time I see it.

Why stop at marriage? Let us apply your logic to everything in the world so we can see just how absurd the "slippery slope" argument is.

We can't let gay people in the military. Because if we move that line and let them in the military, then the next thing you know we will have to let children and kittens into the military. And let's face it, a cat would look pretty silly flying a fighter jet!

What about voting? If we start letting gay people vote, then we will have to let children vote. Worse yet, we will have to let parakeets vote. Do you really want your Presidential election decided by a parakeet?

Basically, anything we let gay people do, we will eventually have to let children and pets do. Given this revelation, I think we should start taking a long hard look at the righst gay people currently posess and take them away. We can stop the slippery slope.

Just say no to kittens driving tanks. It's not good for you and it's not good for America!

Where do you draw the line Kiamat? How much do you love America? How many rights must I lose so that you feel safe?

Imagine if a Judge had overruled Hitler's dissolving of the German parliament as illegal.

Or if Pontious Pilate overruled the will of the mob wanting to crucify Jesus.

Or (insert a thousand other examples here).

Maybe politicians shouldn't put forward blatantly discriminatory laws, judges wouldn't have to say they're against the whole "US Bill of Rights" (And not even the gay marriage part of it, the rest of the bill messed with gay peoples' rights.)

I'm firmly convinced that the average parakeet could do no worse than the voter when it comes to understanding the issues they are voting on.

Well said.

Michi, out of curiosity, what part of the country do you live in?

Where I am, in Michigan, I think that, if the current administration did decide to pass a law that said you had to be a Christian, it would anger a significant percentage of the Conservatives, too. Here, at least, they haven't all completely lost sight of the concept of Freedom of Religion.

Of course, in my particular bit of Michigan, down by Detroit, a lot of the Conservatives aren't Christian. So that may be what makes the difference. (I live in an area that has the highest percentage of Middle Eastern residents of any city that's not in the middle east. When the kids were in school, their school bulletins came in English and Arabic. I assume they still do.)

Also where I live, people are beginning to realize that the current administration isn't Conservative a bit.

Historically, Conservatives don't want things to change. They don't believe in amending the Constitution. They don't believe in having the Federal Government dictate policy to the states. They don't like the government, at any level, poking its nose into their business. They do believe in the right of privacy. They tend to be into sports like hunting and fishing, which requires leaving a certain amount of the land forested and wild. They don't like "Tax and Spend," and disapprove of the government running up huge debts. They really, really dislike it when the government lies to them. They believe in holding the government to a high standard of morals and ethics. (And not just in the sexual arena; in all other areas, too.)

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. What they believe in, and stand for, is nothing like what we see happening at a federal level right now. Conservatives aren't stupid, and some of them, even though they don't want to believe that they have been betrayed this deeply, are beginning to realize it.

The fact that the average conservative disapproves of same-gender marriage doesn't alarm me. It's their job to disapprove of things that haven't been tried before, or that will change the definition of something. If you do the research, it generally takes an average of 80 years after a movement to win rights is initiated in the US before those rights actually become law at a federal level. We're only thirty-some years into this particular struggle at the moment, and it's proceeding at the same pace, with the same losses and gains, as such struggles normally do.

(It's not even the first time that discrimination has been written into the constitution, in spite of what you might have heard. The 14th amendment, which gave African Americans the right to vote, also defined voters as male; some twenty years after the movement for women's right to vote started in this country.)

What does alarm me is the way in which the current administration is whipping up the fear and dividing the people of this country, and their "whatever it takes" mentality. It's not healthy. I only hope that enough true conservatives realize what's happening in time to do something about changing their party leadership.

Robin (Sojourner) Wood

Juro,

Precisely my point. People act as if the whole child marriage thing is all in my fevered mind, but it's not.

So now that you've drawn the line-what are you going to tell these people who say to you all that you've said to me. What will you say when they argue "What goes on in our bedroom is no one's business." and "Who are you to press your morality on us?" . What are you going to say when they say "This is just like interracial or same sex marriage." or "Who's to say when adulthood begins. Romeo and Juliet were only 13!"

What will you do, Juro, if a judge decides to protect their rights as minorities against your majority will? What about the rest of you?

Remember, this thread isn't so much about gay marriage, it's about activist judges.


-Kiamat Dusk
...injecting a liberal amount of conservatism into the forums...

Juro,

Those scriptures were to explain my *own* postion on homosexuality. In no way do I espouse a desire to see a theocracy of any kind.

-Kiamat Dusk

-Kiamat Dusk