Just in time for the judicial unit (in 3 of 4 classes, anyway), a constitutional case makes the front page. There are a number of connections to concepts coming up in the curriculum, starting with the political and legal nature of this case. The general politics and arguments for and against same sex marriage are probably at least a little bit familiar to you, and feel free to debate them as you wish.
I'm not much interested in the political and legal subplots about putting the proceedings up on YouTube. I'm wary of televised trials of any type, but I understand why the plaintiffs are angling for video. I prefer the purity of reading. That this sub-issue has already touched the US Supreme Court raises the profile of this already high-profile case.
A less obvious political angle is the lack of trust between the gay community and the plaintiff's lead attorney in the case, Ted Olson. Ted Olson is one of the most prominent conservatives at the Supreme Court bar, having represented Bush in Bush v. Gore and later been Bush's Solicitor General. Some gays are wary of the timing, thinking the current Supreme Court is unlikely to rule favorably and evenly suspicious that Olson might be bringing the case hoping to lose and set a precedent that will be harder to change in the future. I think that is ridiculous, but fret about the timing, and understand why activists would be frustrated when they realize that their chances of winning are marginally improved by having a straight, connected, conservative making the main pitch if this were ever to make it to the Supreme Court. His joining this case has ruffled feathers in conservative quarters as well.
Legally speaking, the merits of the case as a matter of constitutional law are distinct from the merits of the idea of same sex civil marriages in the first place. Keep that in mind as you read and write about this issue.
Here are some links:
The text of the plaintiff's opening statement. (Arguing to overturn Prop 8 as unconstitutional.)
A conservative blogger's sarcastic response. Actually, I think Maggie Gallagher is the president of the National Organization for Marriage, and here is a longer column of hers on the subject titled California Voters Face Show Trial in Kangaroo Court. Here's a pretty typical comment thread at Volokh.com, a libertarian-minded law professor blog, which will be a great place to get objective analysis if you can ignore the ignorant voices in the choir; stick to the professors and the obviously astute comments.
Late Night Open Thread: Tick, Tock…
5 hours ago
11 comments:
If the Supreme Court does support the decision to overturn Prop 8, and California is forced to overturn its law, the political carnage that ensues will be something worth watching. At least I'll enjoy watching the chaos. It gets even better when conservative states along the sun belt would similarly be forced to overturn its laws against gay marriage. I would not be surprised if the GOP went pro-state and start wailing stuff about the 10th amendment.
I agree that the political carnage will be worth watching.
Also worth watching: several million Americans gleeful that at least one institution of government believes they are entitled to full citizenship.
As is already being proven in Europe (add Portugal to the list), gay marriage doesn't actually lead to sexual anarchy and confused youth. It reinforces a norm of monogamous love that can only be called conservative, and after a few years, the fearmongering will be exposed as unfounded, and politicians will pick another emotional wedge issue to demagogue.
I'm very confident in Ted Olson's ruling actually. If he was appointed by Reagan, it shouldn't that much a of a tough call.
"If the Supreme Court does support the decision to overturn Prop 8, and California is forced to overturn its law, the political carnage that ensues will be something worth watching."
No, it won't. It'll just prove the ultimate inconsistency the Supreme Court will have demonstrated. That's nothing to be proud of, but rather ashamed/embarrassed of.
"It gets even better when conservative states along the sun belt would similarly be forced to overturn its laws against gay marriage. I would not be surprised if the GOP went pro-state and start wailing stuff about the 10th amendment."
That will never happen. They are already pro-state, hence why gay marriage is already legal in some states, but it won't, and shouldn't, happen in the South. If it does, there will be no concrete definition for "conservative."
"As is already being proven in Europe (add Portugal to the list), gay marriage doesn't actually lead to sexual anarchy and confused youth. It reinforces a norm of monogamous love that can only be called conservative, and after a few years, the fearmongering will be exposed as unfounded, and politicians will pick another emotional wedge issue to demagogue."
This is a statement I must disagree with. Gay marriage does lead to sexual anarchy and confused youth. People are already sexually immoral, heterosexually, and when homosexuality makes it's appearance, sexual purity won't even exist any longer. Gays claim their behavior wouldn't interfere with the rest of the community, yet they want to adopt children, and bypass don't ask-don't tell policies in the military. They don't want to submit to the community, they want the community to submit to them. What's the next privilege that they'll want in return? Who knows. I don't see how it reinforces a norm of monogamous love that can be called conservative. Anybody that is socially conservative knows this. It reinforces liberal love instead, meaning, anything can go and anything is possible and okay. I thought that was a given? The fearmongering will never be exposed as unfounded. I mean, look at senator Harry Reid's snide yet incidental comment towards Obama. We all thought that kind of thinking dissipated right? Yeah ... especially coming from a Democrat. Case in point, fearmongering comes from all people, not just conservatives as you seem to be implying. As far as another emotional wedge issue, IMO if you are for gay-marriage, you MUST be for legalized prostitution and the legalization of marijuana also. If not, that would mean the person being described is politically inconsistent, thus invalidating their political "opinion." Everybody should be able to connect the dots here.
However, we'll just see how this all unfolds.
-Andrew Oxendine 3*
Drew, I do not know if you realize this, but the Gay Gene has been discovered. It is not wholly determinate, but it makes an individual significantly more likely to be Gay, and is passed down on the X chromosome. You can no more be taught to be gay than you can be taught to be tall (this invalidates the opinion that adopted children of Gay couples would become sexually confused). There is no evidence that it would lead to sexual anarchy, at all. Why shouldn't they be able to bypass the "Don't ask don't tell" policies in the military? They're discriminative against a group of people that cannot help the way they are, and are not harming anyone. You state that they "want the community to submit to them", but all they're asking for are the rights everyone else is entitled to.
You claim that people are already sexually immoral, and I'm making the assumption that this is because it is premarital, but why is sex morally unacceptable? It makes people happy, and it is scientifically demonstrated that it is healthy for the mind and the body.
"IMO if you are for gay-marriage, you MUST be for legalized prostitution and the legalization of marijuana also." Well, I am for gay-marriage, and I am for the legalization of marijuana as well (what makes this substance immoral? if anything, it's an improvement over alcohol). I am not for the legalization of prostitution, because prostitution is almost always forced on women, and the argument "if it's legal, we can regulate it" has been empirically demonstrated to be false in countries like Australia.
Also, for the record, until the Catholicism became predominant (leading to the Christian Dark Ages), society found homosexuality to be perfectly acceptable. In Japan it was considered to be better than heterosexuality. In Sparta it was perfectly acceptable (in fact, Sparta had a sexual culture so different than our own, that most people would shudder at it).
To Sam:
"Drew, I do not know if you realize this, but the Gay Gene has been discovered. It is not wholly determinate, but it makes an individual significantly more likely to be Gay, and is passed down on the X chromosome."
I have yet to see the evidence. Key word: determinate.
"They're discriminative against a group of people that cannot help the way they are, and are not harming anyone."
Read about the don't ask-don't tell policies. They don't discriminate. That's why they're called don't ask-don't tell policies. Again, key word: determinate.
"You claim that people are already sexually immoral, and I'm making the assumption that this is because it is premarital, but why is sex morally unacceptable? It makes people happy, and it is scientifically demonstrated that it is healthy for the mind and the body."
Sex is not morally unacceptable. People make it morally unacceptable. Marriage was instituted by God and therefore moral sex can take place after marriage between the man and the woman. Period.
"Well, I am for gay-marriage, and I am for the legalization of marijuana as well (what makes this substance immoral? if anything, it's an improvement over alcohol). I am not for the legalization of prostitution, because prostitution is almost always forced on women, and the argument "if it's legal, we can regulate it" has been empirically demonstrated to be false in countries like Australia."
Alcohol is also morally unacceptable but what can you do? Legalizing marijuana is just taking one step further. It's a stepping stone drug leading to further harmful drugs and immoral, abusive behaviors. If you're not for legalizing prostitution but you're for gay-marriage and for legalizing marijuana, your understanding of morals is flawed.
"Also, for the record, until the Catholicism became predominant (leading to the Christian Dark Ages), society found homosexuality to be perfectly acceptable. In Japan it was considered to be better than heterosexuality. In Sparta it was perfectly acceptable (in fact, Sparta had a sexual culture so different than our own, that most people would shudder at it)."
I have yet to see the evidence and even if it were so, I don't care if the whole world is doing it, I'm not going to jump off the bridge too.
Drew,
Here is the evidence. "Homosexual males are more likely than you'd expect by chance to have homosexual brothers. Revealingly, they are also more likely than you'd expect to have homosexual maternal uncles and homosexual cousins on the mother's side, but not on the father's side. This pattern raises the immediate suspicion that at least one gene causing homosexuality in males is carried on the X chromosome. The Bethesda team (the team conducting the research) went further. Modern technology made it possible for them to search for particular marker strings in the DNA code itself. IN one region, called Xq28, near the tip of the X chromosome, they found five identical markers shared by a suggestively high percentage of homosexual brothers. These facts combine elegantly with one another to confirm earlier evidence of a hereditary component to male homosexuality." (Taken from Dawkins' "A Devil's Chaplain" chapter 2.4 "Genes Aren't Us".
The "don't ask don't tell" policies are discriminative because Gays aren't allowed to be open about who they are. Imagine if every non-white person had to wear white bandages so that no one could tell they weren't white. We call that discrimination.
"Sex is not morally unacceptable. People make it morally unacceptable. Marriage was instituted by God and therefore moral sex can take place after marriage between the man and the woman. Period."
I'm not going to address this for obvious reasons. I'd just like to note that it's a tad ironic that you demand evidence from me (which I provided, by the way).
"Alcohol is also morally unacceptable but what can you do? Legalizing marijuana is just taking one step further. It's a stepping stone drug leading to further harmful drugs and immoral, abusive behaviors. If you're not for legalizing prostitution but you're for gay-marriage and for legalizing marijuana, your understanding of morals is flawed."
Unless you have rational justification for this, it is irrelevant.
To Sam:
"Homosexual males are more likely than you'd expect by chance to have homosexual brothers. Revealingly, they are also more likely than you'd expect to have homosexual maternal uncles and homosexual cousins on the mother's side, but not on the father's side. This pattern raises the immediate suspicion that at least one gene causing homosexuality in males is carried on the X chromosome. The Bethesda team (the team conducting the research) went further. Modern technology made it possible for them to search for particular marker strings in the DNA code itself. IN one region, called Xq28, near the tip of the X chromosome, they found five identical markers shared by a suggestively high percentage of homosexual brothers. These facts combine elegantly with one another to confirm earlier evidence of a hereditary component to male homosexuality." (Taken from Dawkins' "A Devil's Chaplain" chapter 2.4 "Genes Aren't Us".
I'm still struggling to identify this absolute proof. If it's been proven by other scientists in the same field completely 100%, if it's widely credible, has been authenticated and the research has been conducted several times with the appropriate step-by-step walkthroughs I could definitely see it. So far, it's come from Dawkins and I haven't heard it from anyone else.
http://media.www.westerncourier.com/media/storage/paper650/news/2006/10/09/Opinion/Homosexuality.Not.Genetic-2339447.shtml
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07032003.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160065/posts
Read those. They're off the web but still accurate enough and I gave you only three resources. I could find MANY more. That's not coming from the Bible anyway. Remember the key word: determinate. People aren't born with sin. Simple.
"The "don't ask don't tell" policies are discriminative because Gays aren't allowed to be open about who they are. Imagine if every non-white person had to wear white bandages so that no one could tell they weren't white. We call that discrimination. "
It's the military. The military isn't SF, where you can go around and parade about your sexual orientation. In the military, nobody cares. The military has socialist ideals integrated into it. Everyone is equal as it is, (isn't that what gays want anyway?), so there's no need to further boast about it. You have an objective and you're trained to complete that objective with your team, no matter what. I don't see where being open with who you are fits into that. Maybe you do, but I certainly do not.
"I'm not going to address this for obvious reasons. I'd just like to note that it's a tad ironic that you demand evidence from me (which I provided, by the way)."
I don't remember the obvious reasons, sorry, so please explain them again so that I may be able to appropriately address them. I don't what's ironic. My proof is the Bible. Genesis 2: 18-25 and Genesis 4:1-2. You gave me "A Devil's Chaplain." What's ironic? The real scientific proof, that I described above, that you have yet to deliver?
"Unless you have rational justification for this, it is irrelevant."
What wasn't rational about that? Morals came from God, who strictly condemns the use and practice of those behaviors. I was pointing out your inconsistency, that's all.
I'm not saying that genes are wholly deterministic. They're like a recipe. And of course environmental factors enter in to Gene expression. I've done my homework Drew. What I am saying is that it is biological, and that the evidence supports this conclusion. There are genetic factors which make individuals far more likely to be homosexual, and you are discriminating against them by denying them equal rights. Drew, I provided evidence for my cause, and you did too with your link to the Francis Collins article. Genes aren't wholly deterministic. They are not a blueprint, they are a recipe. They make a person more likely to be gay. I'd also like to point out that both Dawkins and Collins are acknowledged as some of the most brilliant scientists of our time. But, I'd like to point out, almost every single mammal we've ever observed has engaged in some kind of homosexual behavior. There is overwhelming evidence that it is natural.
Drew, there are no inconsistencies that I am aware of in my views; you are, I think, putting words in my mouth.
The reason that your views are irrational is because there is no evidence for God, and you are basing all of your views on an unjustified hypothesis. Whether you like it or not, the atheist community has been winning the debate over God's existence since the time of Epicurus (who, ironically was a deist).
To Sam:
"I'm not saying that genes are wholly deterministic. They're like a recipe. And of course environmental factors enter in to Gene expression. I've done my homework Drew. What I am saying is that it is biological, and that the evidence supports this conclusion. There are genetic factors which make individuals far more likely to be homosexual, and you are discriminating against them by denying them equal rights. Drew, I provided evidence for my cause, and you did too with your link to the Francis Collins article. Genes aren't wholly deterministic. They are not a blueprint, they are a recipe. They make a person more likely to be gay. I'd also like to point out that both Dawkins and Collins are acknowledged as some of the most brilliant scientists of our time. But, I'd like to point out, almost every single mammal we've ever observed has engaged in some kind of homosexual behavior. There is overwhelming evidence that it is natural."
I don't deny gays as human beings. I deny their sin to be made known as equal rights. I recall hearing about the murder gene, with a similar like nature. People who have family members who have committed murder can obtain a gene that slightly exposes them to a murderer's thought patterns. However, it's not deterministic, people can modify their behavior to do what's right, people aren't born with sin, or with a hint of sin. People choose to be homosexual, or murderers, when they know good and well that kind of behavior is not genetically factored into their lives to the point of where they couldn't help it. It may hold them back a little, but not to the point of defeat. To say that is just silly.
"Drew, there are no inconsistencies that I am aware of in my views; you are, I think, putting words in my mouth."
No, I'm not. I'm just connecting the dots.
"The reason that your views are irrational is because there is no evidence for God, and you are basing all of your views on an unjustified hypothesis. Whether you like it or not, the atheist community has been winning the debate over God's existence since the time of Epicurus (who, ironically was a deist)."
This comment is irrational. All of the evidence you need lies in the Bible. It's all there. If you don't want to believe it, fine. That's your choice. No evidence for God? Really? I laughed at that. Good one. Where's the evidence for evolution or the big bang? If I can describe to you in a single sentence, very clearly, how time began you should be able to do the same. So far, all I hear is, "it just happened." An unjustified hypothesis? Every "scientific" theory, which is exactly what they are, just silly theories, are just those, unjustified hypotheses. You've got them switched I'm afraid. Think what you want, my friend. The atheist community can think that they're "winning" if they so choose to. I don't think I'm trying to "win" over anything. I am simply just trying to follow what's right. I'm just trying to follow God and His Holy and Divine Word, the Gospel, to the best of my ability. I'm only trying to overcome evil. WHATEVER, lies in my path, I will attempt to defeat it. Think what you will. That is all.
I apologize that my previous post was a bit scrambled and incomplete.
Drew your point about evolution was astute. It isn't wholly deterministic, but it has an influence, and one that is significant.
I'm done with this discussion. I've had this conversation with you before, but this is not the appropriate place for it. If you wish to try and convert me again, I would be more than happy to talk to you during lunch tomorrow. The gov blog, however, is not the appropriate place for religious debate.
Alright, agreed.
You're right. We can discuss this elsewhere, somewhere more appropriate. However, Sam, I'm not trying to convert you nor I am forcing you to accept what the Bible teaches. You choose what you want to believe. I can't take that from you nor would I want to. You have that freedom to disagree as an American. Whether it's ethical or not is a different issue.
I probably won't make it to Wei's class for lunch today but I'll try. I'm working on my proposal for Silton.
Post a Comment