Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm not demanding anything, hoping and wishing yes. Not sure why seeking a lil respect and understanding is bad.

But you see, laws are not about making concrete something we're merely hoping and wishing for. Laws are not about making legal something that is a "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if..." type of thing.

Having everyone in society--regardless of personal beliefs--nod their heads and plaster a smile on their face and say, "Your gay relationship is equal to my heterosexual marriage" is not something laws are for.

Laws are society's act of giving government permission to exercise force in some way to secure the inalienable rights of the individuals in that society.

And you can't make a law that says, "There is a God-given right to gay or heterosexual marriages, so everyone has to accept gay relationships as normal and respectable."

Well I guess enough people COULD make that law a reality, but 7 million people (52%) of Californians didn't say that and don't want that law.

I'm not looking for acceptance, i am however looking for simple respect. Can we agree you can respect someone with out accepting all they are?

Of course.

Just don't try to use the law as a blunt instrument to force people to show respect for every lifestyle choice.

Ultimately, here's what's happening from both perspectives:

Heterosexual Perspective

Gay couples are metaphorically coming up, twisting my arm behind my back and while taking money from my wallet saying, "The courts say I can do this so you will be forced in some way to believe my gay relationship is equal to your heterosexual relationship, and that gay couples are not wrong or disgusting."

Homosexual Perspective

Conservative couples are metaphorically answering their door, at which point a gay couple asks them to donate $50 or whatever to help pay for their monthly utility bill, at which point the conservative couple says, "Sorry, no," and closes the door.

Do you see why heterosexuals consider this "simple" issue of gay marriage to be a violation of their right to personal property?

And do you see why heterosexuals don't see the legal or moral problem with being able to choose who they give financial assistance to?

It's a choice between forcing the majority of the population to give you some of their money, or securing the majority's ability to spend their money on causes they approve of...

[Soulsearcher]

So I'm confused.......

The issue is the money being paid out .....

So it's ok they are getting the civil unions which gives them the money

But not marriage...........

If it all comes down to the money issue then we have an issue because so far everyone supports the civil union and the equal benefits. They have been opposing this argument because of the moral implications of same sex couples and tainting marriage.

Now i am really confused.

As for using laws as a blunt instrument, funny that both sides see that as being used against them.

[CrimsonKairos]

You made the statement. you've just eliminated marriage for seniors and non-fertile couples.

Soul, again you're playing semantic soccer and it's not something I enjoy.

I think you know what I was getting at by saying "biologically capable" of having kids.

I'll be blunt so there's no confusion:

Two men's private parts cannot create a baby.

Two women's private parts cannot create a baby.

Is that absolute enough for you?

[CrimsonKairos]

So I'm confused.......

The issue is the money being paid out .....

So it's ok they are getting the civil unions which gives them the money

No, I don't think that's okay.

Give them equal ability to see their partner in the hospital? Sure.

Take my money and give it to them? Nope. Not at all.

So if civil unions necessarily involve "financial equality," I'm against civil unions too.

[Soulsearcher]

Soul, again you're playing semantic soccer and it's not something I enjoy.

I think you know what I was getting at by saying "biologically capable" of having kids.

I'll be blunt so there's no confusion:

Two men's private parts cannot create a baby.

Two women's private parts cannot create a baby.

Is that absolute enough for you?

Quoting you directly isn't playing semantics lol. Not my fault you made a very clear cut statement and had it used to put your foot in your mouth. Say exactly what you mean like you just did or be prepared to get things used exactly as you said them, not exactly a hard thought to follow.

[CrimsonKairos]

Not my fault you made a very clear cut statement and had it used to put your foot in your mouth. Say exactly what you mean like you just did or be prepared to get things used exactly as you said them, not exactly a hard thought to follow.

Do you want to add a "neener-neener-neeeeener" to that comment?

Soul, it's clear you're the type who uses word games to derail discussions and confuse conversations.

I think I've made my point eminently clear, and feel no further need to discuss this issue with you.

The sharp divide between sides of this issue will remain as razor sharp as ever as long as one or both sides engage in politics, "tag, you're it" arguments, and close-minded interchanges.

[Soulsearcher]

No, I don't think that's okay.

Give them equal ability to see their partner in the hospital? Sure.

Take my money and give it to them? Nope. Not at all.

So if civil unions necessarily involve "financial equality," I'm against civil unions too.

Equality is equality, in all aspects, so far it seems that civil unions are fine because they grant the same basic benefits as marriage without the name, so far the argument is it's the name that's sacred not the legal benefits, can't really have it both ways, it it's just a legality then keeping people out is not quite right, if it's a sacred religious thing then you might have a case, but you lose the ability to make it just about money. As dravin has been mentioning.......legal or social, take your pick, but don't try and change the core argument half way through, it makes you look bad, or so i have been told.

[Dravin]

Again Having the law on the books doesn't change society in the least

Which is it? Is marriage sought after with the intent that it will change how society views a homosexual partnership or isn't it? You can't claim it both ways. You keep on saying that you want society to accept that your love is real, that your relationships are meaningful and to this end marriage (a law) is desired, you can't turn around and say marriage won't change society in the least.

Well I suppose you can but you'd peg yourself as delusional and I don't think you are. I just think you see acceptance more as binary, and I see it more as a continuum. If all you desire is that hicks will see your union as one based on love not greed you are desiring more social acceptance than you have now, if your intent in changing a law is to effect that change you are using the law as a means of trying to create social acceptance.

I'll stop banging this drum now, and just leave it up to linguistic or philosophical disagreement over what exactly social acceptance is.

Can we agree you can respect someone with out accepting all they are?

I can respect you as a person but I do not respect your choices, in my mind they are not morally valid life choices. I will of course not go hounding you down the street, but if asked my opinion I will give it, and I won't waffle about it and it wouldn't surprise me if you took it as disrespectful. One problem is respect and accept can be synonyms of a sort. So I don't respect your choices or accept them as morally valid but on the other hand I respect you as a Son of God and recognize you don't deserve to be driven down the street with slurs being cast at you.

Honestly I don't have an issue with seeking respect or societal acceptance. My issue is using the law to do it, where is the line? One should accept a homosexual couple as having a legal right (and a moral one) not to be lynched at one extreme, and at the other the Proclamation of the Family shouldn't be declared hate speech (Intentionally extreme examples on both ends). The balance of rights is somewhere in the middle. For the record I'm conflicted on Prop 8 and similar laws. I unreservedly hold homosexual unions to be immoral, but the laws of this country are governed by more than what is immoral.

Also I think it would be a grave tactical mistake for the Lobby (I know, you don't speak for them) to claim they only want parity and then be found admitting they desire social acceptance via legislation as well. The backlash would be spectacular.

as for the lobby, i can't speak for them.

Thing is you're like a Mormon in the Bible belt, what you say will color the perceptions of folks about the others. The guy who doesn't believe the lobby only cares about legal parity is going to quote you as evidence they are selling a pack of lies.

Sucks don't it? You may want to kick me for this, but I've mostly been arguing in the hypothetical.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Dravin

[Soulsearcher]

Do you want to add a "neener-neener-neeeeener" to that comment?

Soul, it's clear you're the type who uses word games to derail discussions and confuse conversations.

I think I've made my point eminently clear, and feel no further need to discuss this issue with you.

The sharp divide between sides of this issue will remain as razor sharp as ever as long as one or both sides engage in politics, "tag, you're it" arguments, and close-minded interchanges.

Exact quotes are not word games.

"I do not think gay people should be married" is clear, making a comment about people who can't have children is a comment about all people who can't have children. either be clear or don't, but don't think someone pointing out your own words is a word game.

BTW TAG you're it.

[Soulsearcher]

Which is it? Is marriage sought after with the intent that it will change how society views a homosexual partnership or isn't it? You can't claim it both ways. You keep on saying that you want society to accept that your love is real, that your relationships are meaningful and to this end marriage (a law) is desired, you can't turn around and say marriage won't change society in the least.

Well I suppose you can but you'd peg yourself as delusional and I don't think you are. I just think you see acceptance more as binary, and I see it more as a continuum. If all you desire is that hicks will see your union as one based on love not greet you are desiring more social acceptance than you have now, if your intent in changing a law is to effect that change you are using the law as a means of trying to create social acceptance.

I'll stop banging this drum now, and just leave it up to linguistic or philosophical disagreement or what exactly social acceptance is.

I can respect you as a person but I do not respect your choices, in my mind they are not morally valid life choices. I will of course not go hounding you down the street, but if asked my opinion I will give it, and I won't waffle about it and it wouldn't surprise me if you took it as disrespectful.

One problem is respect and accept can be synonyms of a sort. So I don't respect your choices or accept them as morally valid but on the other hand I respect you as a Son of God and recognize you don't deserve to be driven down the street with slurs being cast at you.

Think thing is you're like a Mormon in the Bible belt, what you say will color the perceptions of folks about the others. The guy who doesn't believe the lobby only cares about legal parity is going to quote you as evidence they are selling a pack of lies.

Sucks don't it?

It does suck. I have a lot of LDS telling me there's no hate just love. Then i spend hours reading comments from LDS and other Christians how only good gay is a dead gay, and they wonder why i feel like i do. We tend to get colored by the extremes and over react. The fact i say i'm not trying to change all society but hoping for changes does sound odd. I don't want me to make the changes, i don't want people forced to do anything.

A friend of mine was telling a story. Her husband and a few friends were driving home from work one day. they saw a car on the side of the road and they saw the owner who they knew was gay, they knew they could stop and pull over and try and help but they made the choice to pass him because he was gay(this was admitted kinda proudly). One of the guys felt a lil bad and decided ot go back for him. As The gay guy got in the car the driver said " if you tell anybody i helped you i'll beat you up" At least one if not more of these men was LDS.

I don't want to force a change, i dont want anyone forced ot change. Don't have to agree I'm right, really don't even want a comment. All i want is someone to see me in the side of the road and say hey, there's a guy who needs help and not only see some sick pervert on the side of a road to laugh at and threaten. You said I'm not delusional and i think that's where we meet our main difference. I am a lil delusional, i'm very idealistic and as cynical as i am i want people to get above the petty things, and see the bigger picture, it's why i don't have a religion, i follow my heart i help because i know it's right, i give because someone needs it. i really don't care who they are, just that they are a person, that's how i seem everyone, as just seeing a person not a sin or a race or a religion. I just want people to see people and i know it's a lil silly, but it's how i view the world. Lol no problem admitting i'm a bit naive for my age lol but i still have some hope.

Problem also is while you are arguing in the hypothetical I'm not in some ways. I'm 31 and scared to go on a date. The first person i came out to was my best friend who was lds and now i can't even talk to her, she won't even respond to emails. My catholic family disowned my cousin. I live is a province that's a lil conservative so I'm scared to be out with anyone cause i have seen people beaten or threatened for just holding hands. I lost my first boy friend cause while he said he loved me he was so scared of other peoples judgments and actions that he chose to walk away. These aren't hypothetical. these are just my examples. And i have a few more in how society has helped shape the lifestyle of some gay people into the very stereo types people use against us. Not meant to be a sob story, but that's just the last year in my life. Hoping for people to want to change is what i wish, i don't care about marriage i just wish people would remember they have an effect on others.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[Dravin]

See I have a problem wrapping my head around horror stories like that. Not because I think they are lies mind you, but because it's a thought process (on the part of folks doing the beating or the shunning) so foreign it just doesn't compute.

[Soulsearcher]

See I have a problem wrapping my head around horror stories like that. Not because I think they are lies mind you, but because it's a thought process (on the part of folks doing the beating or the shunning) so foreign it just doesn't compute.

I understand, i really do. But the church has their own history of this. Look at all the pain they went through, look How Joseph Smith died. The people of the church know these feelings all to well from their past. Sadly these aren't horror stories this is daily life for some and it's supported daily by a very public view of who we are. It's a small step for someone to think my actions are evil, to thinking i'm evil, to thinking i'm less of a person because i am evil, to thinking it's ok to hurt things that are less than human. Not right, and not what Christ teaches, but Christ has a lot of followers in name that really miss the point.

[Moksha]

It's too bad that experience with the other side's lunatic fringe has led us to conclude that we can't all trust each other's motives a little more.

I used to think this, but as long as they stick with listening to the radio and stay off the greens in the golf carts, no one gets run over.

[RanMan]

Actually it was implied by the first few posts that this judge because he was gay was completely unable to be impartial because he was gay. The fact the original few posts specifically questioned this ability and mocked the fact it was said that he acted without bias went directly to his personal ability to be trusted. As i said earlier i understand the feelings of the sentiment, if it had been and LDS judge I would have the same fears, but i also think that judge would find the same support from some LDS if he said he was unbiased as this judge is getting from gays.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and those same opening posts were directed to an LDS judge hearing this case - I would not have jumped to a conclusion that any of the people were stating that an LDS could not be trusted to be unbiased. I would expect the opposition to be uneasy with having an LDS judge look at the issue. I certainly wouldn't have phrased a statement the way you did. But hey, that's just me.

:)

[RanMan]

It could possibly be a non-issue now , the problem being there are a large number of members and people who have commented from the religious right that the civil unions is the next target. They don't want Gay's to have anything. So with prop 8 it was a great first step. I've seen posts from this site over the years that civil unions are just as evil and need to not exist. People voted once to take something away, be it right or privilege, based solely on religious conviction, so are we sure we have nothing to worry when someone gets it in their heads that the civil unions need to go? There are enough people who think gay is just a disease that needs to die out that make people a lil concerned as to where exactly we'll stop having things taken away. All it takes is the prophet getting instruction to fight another crusade and we go through this again, and how many people that now think civil unions are an ok solution find themselves fighting against it? Silly concerns maybe, but really honestly based on the same fears you had about gays getting married, no fact there will be harm but a lot of fear about where it might end up.

I'm sure if you look long enough you can find any number of extreme comments on either side. I rather thought the "Feed the Christians to the Lions" routine was more vitrolic than what the religious right was stating.

The individuals I know and I have talked to have no intention for this to be a first step for anything. I am certainly content for the Civil Unions to be employed by the gay community to award them the same advantages they are seeking in marriage.

Which leads me to wonder what this is the first step for the gay community - since it seems from your argument that there must be one.

:)

[RanMan]

From the stand point that our constitution was set forth to separate church and state and to establish and protect the rights of each individual, I don't have a problem with a gay couple having rights under the law.

Marriage has multiple definitions:

Main Entry: mar·riage

Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry

Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

I heard of an interesting discussion in which someone said yesterday, they didn't mind if gays were civilly united but insisted they not be allowed to use the word marriage or have a ceremony in a religious structure.

Given that religious practice and religious entities do not own the rights to the definition of marriage they can't dictate what the federal, state and local powers-that-be label the union as. They can however manage the affairs of their properties and religious practices and simply disallow such unions within. If those of a mind to object to the term, marriage being used by gays, I propose it is the religious entity that needs to change the terminology they use and not demand an entire nation be forced to comply with a religious demand. Is that not what our constitution is to protect us from?

One does not have to agree with the morality surrounding the choice to act on same sex attraction but as citizens we need to stamp out discrimination wherever it rears it's ugly head. Our government (however flawed) protects the rights of each and everyone of us. Not just the few we call elect.

So the religous entities that instituted and manage marriage should be forced to chage what is essential theirs.

[RanMan]

I do see the concern. Problem being we still have people saying how evil and what a mockery the civil unions are. I honestly would settle for civil unions if so many people didn't like reminding me how inferior from a moral stand point they are to a marriage. People have made it so only "marriage" means a true loving relationship. Civil unions are just a political band aid that gives people tax breaks. So is it a surprise to people when we said yes we just want things to be equal, that when we got it and were still laughed at we set our goals higher? The abolitionists and the civil rights workers was a great example, great people were free, but treated like garbage so lets fix that. Great i got the material part of my relationship recognized, but now i'm just a money hungry pervert because i'm not married and getting the benefits, let's try and change that view. I honestly think that the fact people want to belittle the relationships has a lot ot do with this fight. Don't laugh and make jokes and take every opportunity to point out how inferior something is and you might not see such a strong reaction to over compensate. This is more a general argument over time than focused at any one person or group, and yes i am aware our side is just as guilty and has it's own extremists.

As for forcing people out of commerce I'm split on this and it's not just being gay. I would want to see any one told it's not right to pick and choose because of discrimination based on any reason. Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Gay's. I don't want ot see any group told i will not serve you because of what you are. Yes i know this could be taken to an extreme , and i hate seeing it taken to court, but to my mind it's wrong to tell people know just on the basis of what they are. The old restaurants with signs saying no colored people come to mind. Would this not make someone sick to see in today's America? So why would we want ot see signs on businesses post signs saying "no gay's" or "no Christians". i don't like either side of this extreme.

I rather expect to see "No Christians Allowed" to start appearing any time now. I'm ok with it. I'll just take my business elsewhere.

:)

[RanMan]

Interesting stance Melissa, so who has nothing to lose or gain? The entire fight was based on straight people losing how sacred marriage was. So based off the arguments given who had nothing to gain or lose?

I notice you use a different set of terms - depending on which argument you are presenting. Here you talk about straight people as if ALL straight people oppose gay marriage or the gays themselves. I understand by changing this from the real concern (the religous right) that you make it an either or situation. Either a gay judge hears the case or a straight judge hears the case. Which allows you to ignore the fact that it possible to have a judge that is very much in the middle of the road on the topic. I see enough of that on the discussion forums to know that there are moderates on the subject. That is what Melissa has suggested and it is entirely reasonable.

:)

[RanMan]

The problem is, there are very few asexual people in the world, and fewer still that are entirely indifferent to gay marriage. Anybody you asked to rule on this case would have had something to gain or lose in the decision.

So only asexual people can make an unbiased decision based on sexual preferrence?

[RanMan]

So now I hate religious people? I had no clue. Thanks for clearing that up for me, it all makes so much sense now.

That would pretty much sum up my feelings as to several of the statements you've made.

:)

[RanMan]

I also see a line between someone accepting me and someone showing me respect. I'm not looking for acceptance, i am however looking for simple respect. Can we agree you can respect someone with out accepting all they are?

I certainly can agree to that.

:)

[Hemidakota]

Probably had nothing to do with him turning over the will of the California voters....probably:rolleyes:

It will be hard for him in not being biased in this case and living amongest those of his life style. Even I were a judge and standing in a LDS case, would have some bias opinions against those who opposed the church.

But still, time of change is coming.

[GaySaint]

Probably had nothing to do with him turning over the will of the California voters....probably:rolleyes:

I do think it is possible for a gay judge to be impartial in a case dealing with gay issues. However, in a case like this, it would be naive of me to believe he WAS impartial.

Obviously I'm in favor and agree with his ruling, and think it was well constructed, regardless of his sexuality. Still, I would have preferred it if he were straight, simply to avoid the speculation that his sexuality influenced his ruling in the future.

After all, as Pam alluded to, if it were an LDS judge who upheld prop 8, his religion would be blamed as making him biased. How can we not expect the same argument if Judge Walker is gay?

[FunkyTown]

After all, as Pam alluded to, if it were an LDS judge who upheld prop 8, his religion would be blamed as making him biased. How can we not expect the same argument if Judge Walker is gay?

Granted, that would be a storm the likes of which has never been seen. Frankly, I'm relieved that it wasn't an LDS judge up there.

Whether or not it was impartial, some will say it wasn't because it had the appearance of being impartial.

I stand by my rather cynical viewpoint that the judge did it for political reasons rather than a personal belief. I think he wanted to get known out there for career advancement, book signings and the other things that can come of a major part of history that we're seeing right now.

[GaySaint]

Funky: I shouldn't laugh because it's true. He, no doubt, will accomplish the personal advancements - whether intended or not.