Protect and Defend

Welcome to my blog, Protect and Defend. You don’t have to understand me. You only have to agree with me. I can live with losing the good fight, but I can not live with not fighting that good fight at all. - Publius

Friday, October 27, 2006

Thank you New Jersey

With the New Jersey Supreme Court not striking down same sex marriage and instead extending the rights of marriage to gay couples, this is going to lead to a lot of Republicans going out and voting next month in a critical New Jersey race which may determine who controls the Senate.


Blogger Alec said...

Of course, since polls have indicated that NJ is bucking the trend and that a fair majority (around 55%) support full marriage rights, with an overwhelming majority supporting marriage and/or civil unions, I doubt it will have the effect you desire.

In fact, I think the Republicans should emphasize gay marriage. See how well it works this time around.

Fri Oct 27, 02:39:00 AM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

Did you read the ruling? The three justices who dissented did so because it did not go far enough.

WE want this here. Hopefully, we will get it.

Fri Oct 27, 07:18:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Even if a majority of people in New Jersey want to allow gay marriage, a bigger majority of American do not want it. The problem is that people are being confused because this is not a Civil Rights issue. No one has to get married, and even if someone is a homosexual they do not have to engage in any homosexual activities. I am not saying being gay is a choice, what I do mean is that even heterosexuals do not have to engage in heterosexual activities either. You can’t not be black, or handicapped, or a female, but these is nothing stopping an individual from not getting married or not engaging in sexual activities. Sex and marriage are not like breathing, you do have a choice.
I already heard a radio add yesterday for Senator Allen that talked about the New Jersey ruling and used soundbites from Webb that he favors gay marriage.

Sat Oct 28, 05:07:00 PM  
Blogger Alec said...

Bullshit and you know it. I cannot tell that someone is a Christian by looking at them, and in fact they can change their "status" as a Christian by abstaining from practicing Christianity, but I cannot refuse to hire them on that basis. And that is a perfectly sensible law. Similarly, a state cannot refuse to issue a marriage license to someone because they are unemployed; but surely that is a "behavior" and that person has a choice in their unemployment? Or refusing to issue marriage licenses to couples who use contraceptives?

I could go on. But the "choice in behavior" tactic is a loser and you know it. Questions of choice do not determine what is and is not a civil rights or civil liberties issue.

Sat Oct 28, 09:36:00 PM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

Right. Deny who you are just because someone else doesn't like it. So will "celibate" gay folks be allowed to marry? Not hardly.

No church would be required to marry a gay couple if gay marriage is legalized. So if gay folks want to marry at a Friends meeting or a whatever church, they could, and the Catholics and Baptists could still say no. We're talking about a LEGAL right, with legal recognition for the union of two people. That's all. And making those marriages recognized as legal in all 50 states should be a human right, just like "inter-racial" marriage is.

And if Allen is doing what was stated here, I'm not surprised one bit. It only reinforces my opinion of him.

Sat Oct 28, 11:20:00 PM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

A majority of people in the United States in 1954 did not support Brown v. Board of Education. That did not make that "activist" court's decision wrong, did it?

Sat Oct 28, 11:22:00 PM  
Blogger The Local Crank said...

"No one has to get married..."

So, by that logic, you would be in favor of allowing states to once again legislate against inter-racial marriage? How about states banning all civil (i.e., non-church) marriages? That is a mighty slippery slope you are skiing down. Can you see the problem with legislating morality? Who gets to decide what is moral? The majority? Then, as quakerdave pointed out, the schools would still be segregated, my family would all be living on a reservation, and I would've likely been lynched for marrying a white woman.

Sun Oct 29, 10:28:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Alec, I will say that I do like when you post on here. We obviously disagree on some issues, maybe even a lot of issues, but what I like more is your lawyer logic. It is a meandering form of logic, but interesting to see none the less. I have more of a third-grader logic: A gets you to B which gets you to C.
First, no one has said that you can or should be able to not hire someone because they are gay. So I don’t know what the point of your first statement is, so there is nothing much to discuss there. Second, a state can not refuse to issue a marriage license to someone unemployed, but I think there is a charge or fee to a marriage license, so if someone is unemployed and can not afford the license, then actually, the state can refuse an unemployed person a marriage license. Third, how would the state know if a couple uses contraceptives? I have never been married myself, but I don’t think there is a box on the license to check if you do or do not use contraception.
So your argument still has not gotten me past Point A, which is that it is a choice.

Tue Oct 31, 04:55:00 AM  
Blogger Publius said...

QD, no one has to deny who or what they are. No one is being prosecuted anymore for homosexual sex, and no one is being prosecuted for being gay.
As for interracial marriages, that is exactly what I was talking about before, you can’t not be black or not be white.

Tue Oct 31, 05:02:00 AM  
Blogger Publius said...

QD, all the Brown decision did was make it more difficult to have segregated schools. School boundaries did the rest. School boundaries are now set up to segregate kids maybe not by race, but by economics, but it still has the same effect.

Tue Oct 31, 05:05:00 AM  
Blogger Publius said...

Crank, the majority does and should legislate morality. Why can’t you have sex with an underage girl or boy? Why can’t you show pornographic images on television during the day? Why can’t you say the “7 Dirty Words” on TV or the radio? Why can’t you spew vulgarities on the streets? Why can’t you have a porn shop, strip club, or ABC store within so many feet of a church or school? Why are some movies rated R or NC-17? Why isn’t it legal to murder someone if they are bad or if they deserve it?
School segregation and morality are not related. Interracial marriage and morality are not related. The reason why you are not forced to live on a reservation or not lynched for marrying a white woman is because the majority has decided that none of your actions are immoral.

Tue Oct 31, 05:13:00 AM  
Blogger sappho said...

How can one be so arrogant as to think they can legislate love??

If you are against gay marriage, it's this simple....DON'T HAVE ONE!!!!!!!

A comment left on my site regarding this is great & true, at the end he offers $ 1,000 to anyone who can convince him that prohibiting gay marriage is just and/or righteous.

Take the challenge. I have confidence he will smash anyone who tries!

Tue Oct 31, 06:46:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

I spent so long writing this for Sappho’s site that I figured I would post it on here too because I know someone of you don’t read her site as well.

I am not looking for money, but I will try to explain my own opinion. To understand the rationale you have to understand the irrational. I will do so with an argument I have made before so I apologize if this is a repeat to anyone.
Generally, we all have five senses: taste, touch, smell, seeing, and hearing. I believe in something I have never tasted. Something I have never touched. Never smelled. Never seen. And never heard. Like many, I believe in God. There are different faiths from Islam to Catholicism to Hinduism to Protestantism to Buddhism to Judaism, and with each faith there is a different set of religious beliefs that those who follow that faith adhere to. Those who are Jewish do not believe Jesus was the Son of God. Those who are Hindu believe in multiple Gods. Catholics believe the Pope is their spiritual Father and that Priests are their connection to God. Protestants believe in a much more one-on-one connection to God than Catholics. But, regardless of religion, each has different faiths that those who follow that religion adhere to. Mormons are told not to drink, so they don’t. Muslims are told not to eat pork, so they don’t. Jews can only eat kosher meats. There is no rational logic that would dictate why people can’t eat pork anymore. Yes, long before any of us were on this Earth, eating pork could be dangerous, but that is no longer so. Yes, abusing alcohol can be dangerous to yourself and those around you, but having one drink of alcohol should not prevent someone from obtaining a level of Heaven. And, having a rabbi bless meat before it is consumed does not prevent it from being under cooked. But, these are still the beliefs of these faiths, and the followers of these faiths adhere to them.
Would you tell a Muslim they are wrong for not eating pork? Would you criticize a Mormon for not drinking? Would you critique a Jewish person for only eating kosher? That is their faith and they are following their faith. The government can not force a Muslim shop keeper to sell bacon, or a Mormon restaurant owner to sell beer and wine, or a Jewish deli owner to sell non-kosher meats. That would go against what they believe.
In the instance of gay marriage, in many faiths those followers are told that gay marriage is wrong. That is their faith and criticizing them for that faith is the same as criticizing a Muslim for not eating pork. Many states that have decided on gay marriage have left it to the people to decide and they have voted with their faith. They may know gay people, have gay friends, work with gay people, or have gay family members. But, when asked to vote on it, they voted with their faith. That which goes against that faith is wrong. This is the same rationale for an issue like abortion as well. It was the courts and not the people who decided on abortion and it is the courts and not the people who decided on gay marriage in New Jersey.
It is unjust to be against gay marriage? Well if you believe, and if what you believe in is what you believe is just, then anything else is unjust. People can drink alcohol in this country because we are not majority Mormon or majority Muslim. People can eat pork and non kosher meat in this country because we are not majority Jewish or Muslim. Less than 5% of the country is atheist. The US is a Judeo-Christian country, and those who are against gay marriage are not doing it to be unjust. In fact, they are against gay marriage for just the opposite reason.

Wed Nov 01, 12:15:00 AM  
Blogger The Local Crank said...

"Crank, the majority does and should legislate morality"

I should've specified PRIVATE morality, which obviously doesn't include child molestation, but specifically refers to actions between consenting adults.

"School segregation and morality are not related. Interracial marriage and morality are not related."

Oh really? They used to be. What changed? Doesn't that suggest a potential problem to you? If the majority of the people in New Jersey think gay marriage (or civil unions or whatever) ARE moral, why shouldn't they be able to legalize it? DOMA guarantees that the marriages won't be recognised in any other state.

" The reason why you are not forced to live on a reservation or not lynched for marrying a white woman is because the majority has decided that none of your actions are immoral."

Well, that's mighty sweet of y'all to change your minds like that. I'll be sure to pass the good news along to my ancestors buried on the side of the highway from George to Oklahoma. They'll be so happy. Does this mean we get our land back now, or have y'all not yet decided that theft is immoral?

Wed Nov 01, 12:26:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Crank, I didn’t send any Indians to reservations. I didn’t lynch anyone for interracial marriage. No one in my family did either. No one in my family was in this country before 1908. So there is no need to thank me, just as there is no need to blame me.

Thu Nov 02, 12:16:00 AM  
Blogger The Local Crank said...

Around these parts, we call that sarcasm. And whether you personally (or your family) did any of those things, you are part of the white majority, and as such you reap the privilleges and benefits of those acts every day of your life, whether you realize it or want it. And you never answered my original point: if no one has the right to get married (as you said), then why is it okay to ban gay marriage but not okay to ban interracial or interreligious marriage? Nor did you respond to my second point: if (as you say) it's okay to legislate morality but (as you conceded) the majority's moral beliefs (for example, pro and con on lynching me) change over time, does that not suggest a problem with legislating private morality? Nor did you answer my third point: if the majority in a particular state decide something (like gay marriage) IS moral, then by what right does the majority in other states force them to change their laws by amending the US Constitution? By that logic, Northern States should've been forced to deny voting rights to blacks in the 50's because Southern States were opposed to it.

Thu Nov 02, 01:56:00 AM  
Blogger Publius said...

You are right crank, like all white people, I reap the benefits of being white. I own a nice big house, I own a an expensive automobile, I have a high-paying job, I ski in Aspen, summer in Italy, and my maids and cooks take care of all my whims. Around these parts we call that sarcasm.
First, I am not sure where I said no one has the right to get married, what I did say is that no one has to get married. Whereas you don’t have a choice on whether or not to be black or white, you do have a choice on whether or not to get married.
Second, gay marriage is not private morality. Having sex is private morality because it is not against the law to have homosexual sex. But, a marriage license issued by the state or local government is not a private matter because the license is issued by the government and if not conducted in a church is instead conducted in a government office or building, thus not a private matter.
On your third point it actually supports my argument. Whites in the South could not stop black people from voting, they may have instituted poll taxes, literacy tests, government quizzes, etc, but the 15th Amendment prevented Southern states from keeping black people from voting. After the Civil War each of the 13 states that seceded had to agree with ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments even though they did not want to. In the case of black suffrage, would you support those Southern states that did not want to follow the Constitution, even if it went against what the majority thought was moral? Or would you follow the majority of the country and the Constitution and allow black people to vote and force the Southern states to follow the same law?

Thu Nov 02, 11:02:00 PM  
Blogger The Local Crank said...

"white privilege" does not mean you get a free limo ride home from the hospital just for being born. It means, in this context, that you reap the benefits of white racism, whether you exercised it yourself or not, and whether you agree with it or not (and I'm sure you don't). For example, your ancestors had a country to come to in 1908 because other white people stole it at gunpoint from the original owners.

"First, I am not sure where I said no one has the right to get married, what I did say is that no one has to get married."

I think that's splitting hairs (after all, you don't HAVE to exercise free speech), but fine.

"Whereas you don’t have a choice on whether or not to be black or white, you do have a choice on whether or not to get married."

Okay, but that just proves my point. If no one "has" to get married, then what's wrong with the gov't telling people who they can or can't marry? If you don't like the racial angle, how about this: the majority in a state decides anal sex is wrong and forbids heterosexual couples who practice it from getting married (several states actually do outlaw heterosexual "sodomy"). Under your theory, wouldn't that be perfectly alright? No one has to get married and engaging in "sodomy" is a choice, right? Or maybe the majority in a state decides that's immoral for divorced people to get remarried. Wouldn't that be okay? After all, you don't "have to" get married, right?

"but the 15th Amendment prevented Southern states from keeping black people from voting."

Wow, I don't even know how to answer that. Did you miss American history from 1870 until 1965? First, the Southern states (with Northern connivance) completely ignored the law. And second, the Supreme Court neutered those Amendments, primarily the 14th, which they usually only applied to corporations.
But to get back to your point, both Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1965 were opposed by a majority of Americans North and South at the time. Under your theory of moral majoritarianism, they should never have been passed. But we can probably agree on this point: gay activists are wasting their time trying to gain rights thru the courts. The courts by themselves never desegregating a single school or registered a single black person to vote. The change came when the majority of white people decided racism was immoral. Likewise, gay people are only going to get the right to marry when and if they convince the majority of straight people that their cause is just.

Sat Nov 04, 03:02:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home