Why Gov. Romney is just plain WRONG.

[shanek]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004647

No matter how you feel about gay marriage, we should be able to agree that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage.

This absurd claim is merely stated by Gov. Romney without any support whatsoever. This is entirely indicative of how politicians think, or at leat how politicians want us to think: government should be involved in our lives, no question, no debate.

And yet, his further comments, when examined skeptically (something that doesn't happen anywhere near enough in politics), refute his assumed position:

Contrary to the court's opinion, marriage is not "an evolving paradigm." It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.

Here, he is absolutely correct: marriage came about without government and existed for centuries without government. We don't need government in marriage, and we certainly don't need government telling us what marriage means.

The thing is, whether he realizes it or not, Romney is supporting a government redefinition of marriage. In the 19th century, government stepped in to control marriage in order to prevent freed blacks from marrying whites. Before then, there was no government involvement in marriage. It was between the couple being married, and the church, and many times even happened without the church. So the very law Romney is wanting to be upheld fits the very argument of what he says shouldn't be done.

Now, check out this bull$#!7:

Because of marriage's pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation.

Rights ARE NOT GIVEN BY GOVERNMENT, and you can't get around that by calling them "benefits." These "benefits" are things that government has TAKEN FROM US BY FORCE and then generously given back to married couples. It IS discrimination, plain and simple. And the whole "building a stable new generation" is poppycock; by his own admission, we did not need government for centuries to build stable new generations. In fact, many generations had to fight their governments in order to obtain stability.

Think about it: If it really were as Romney said, then why would there need to be a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Oh, wait, that's right—"activist judges" (which, apparently, means "judges who have the audacity to believe that the Constitution means what it actually says").

For more evidence of this, consider his last proposal: "Act at the federal level." But where in the US Constitution does it give the Federal government the power to say who can marry and who can't? It doesn't, and so under the 9th and 10th Amendments it falls to the states, unless the Constitution prohibits the states or the people maintain it as a right. Since many are, in fact, maintaining the right to marry whomever they want as a right, it's clear what Romney wants is to force his own version of morality on others, something our framers quite rightly feared the government doing.

Here's one question I'd love to ask people like Romney: If a gay couple gets married, how does it affect Shane Killian or his children?

Answer: It doesn't. Government has no business whatsoever interfering in this most personal and intimate aspect of our lives. It shouldn't regulate it, it shouldn't give people "benefits" (especially when they're things the government took from us by force in the first place), it shouldn't license it or recognize it in any way. Get the government OUT of our homes and OUT of our bedrooms.

[CFLarsen]

Are you by any chance running for office?

[Tmy]

I think alot of peopel are pissed about how this is coming about. A 4-3 court (so the constitution is not as clear on this as some would think) is dictating to the legistlator. Puttng out opinions for christsakes!

Legal marriage is not in the constitution. It was created by the lawmakers. Just like speed limits and the tax code. SO you casn see how the lawmakers get urked when the SJC comes in and starts ordering them around.



As for gettingthe govt out of our bedrooms. I agree. But when you talk about legal marriage, your leaving your bedroom and getting into the govt.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004647



This absurd claim is merely stated by Gov. Romney without any support whatsoever. This is entirely indicative of how politicians think, or at leat how politicians want us to think: government should be involved in our lives, no question, no debate.

And yet, his further comments, when examined skeptically (something that doesn't happen anywhere near enough in politics), refute his assumed position:



Here, he is absolutely correct: marriage came about without government and existed for centuries without government. We don't need government in marriage, and we certainly don't need government telling us what marriage means.

The thing is, whether he realizes it or not, Romney is supporting a government redefinition of marriage. In the 19th century, government stepped in to control marriage in order to prevent freed blacks from marrying whites. Before then, there was no government involvement in marriage. It was between the couple being married, and the church, and many times even happened without the church. So the very law Romney is wanting to be upheld fits the very argument of what he says shouldn't be done.

Now, check out this bull$#!7:



Rights ARE NOT GIVEN BY GOVERNMENT, and you can't get around that by calling them "benefits." These "benefits" are things that government has TAKEN FROM US BY FORCE and then generously given back to married couples. It IS discrimination, plain and simple. And the whole "building a stable new generation" is poppycock; by his own admission, we did not need government for centuries to build stable new generations. In fact, many generations had to fight their governments in order to obtain stability.

Think about it: If it really were as Romney said, then why would there need to be a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Oh, wait, that's right—"activist judges" (which, apparently, means "judges who have the audacity to believe that the Constitution means what it actually says").

For more evidence of this, consider his last proposal: "Act at the federal level." But where in the US Constitution does it give the Federal government the power to say who can marry and who can't? It doesn't, and so under the 9th and 10th Amendments it falls to the states, unless the Constitution prohibits the states or the people maintain it as a right. Since many are, in fact, maintaining the right to marry whomever they want as a right, it's clear what Romney wants is to force his own version of morality on others, something our framers quite rightly feared the government doing.

Here's one question I'd love to ask people like Romney: If a gay couple gets married, how does it affect Shane Killian or his children?

Answer: It doesn't. Government has no business whatsoever interfering in this most personal and intimate aspect of our lives. It shouldn't regulate it, it shouldn't give people "benefits" (especially when they're things the government took from us by force in the first place), it shouldn't license it or recognize it in any way. Get the government OUT of our homes and OUT of our bedrooms.

Shanek, you wouldn't consider moving to Michigan and running for Congress would you?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tmy
I think alot of peopel are pissed about how this is coming about. A 4-3 court (so the constitution is not as clear on this as some would think) is dictating to the legistlator. Puttng out opinions for christsakes!

Legal marriage is not in the constitution. It was created by the lawmakers. Just like speed limits and the tax code. SO you casn see how the lawmakers get urked when the SJC comes in and starts ordering them around.



As for gettingthe govt out of our bedrooms. I agree. But when you talk about legal marriage, your leaving your bedroom and getting into the govt. The lawmakers made the laws...and the courts rulled that the laws cover every couple equally. That darned equality thing sucks, doesn't it?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tmy
As for gettingthe govt out of our bedrooms. I agree. But when you talk about legal marriage, your leaving your bedroom and getting into the govt.

And just how exactly do you do that? Just exactly what changes when you change the sex of one of the people all of a sudden makes it government's business?

[Tricky]

IIRC, Shanek has run for office (fairly recently), but the "system" made electing Libertarian candidates impossible. There is no evidence to the rumor that a Dean-like scream session harmed his chances.

[Silicon]

I just agreed with everything Shanek said.



SCARY! :D


I think Shanek is right on, on this one. It's none of the government's business. There are certain things which are fundamental, that government should have absolutely no role in. I think that love, family, marriage and faith are those things.

I'd say we end civil marriage, but then we need to have some paperwork procedures for things like inheritance without will, standing to sue for wrongful death, joint custody of children, etc.

My Mother in law is gay. She's married, in the eyes of our family and in the eyes of her God. But not in the state of Massachusetts where the ceremony was held. Hmmmm... maybe a repeating of the vows is in order!

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Zero
The lawmakers made the laws...and the courts rulled that the laws cover every couple equally. That darned equality thing sucks, doesn't it?

Well its not equal if your a related couple. Or if your single? or a triple? The point of marriage laws is to create inequality.

Personally, I dont think gay marriage is equal to hetero. Wh hetero you've got the whole procreation thing ( yeah I know adoption ect.)

I'd be up for civil unions. But when you amke all marriages legal then you cant favor hetero marriages in say adoption proceedings. And i think hetero couples should have an advantage there.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tmy


Well its not equal if your a related couple. Or if your single? or a triple? The point of marriage laws is to create inequality.

Personally, I dont think gay marriage is equal to hetero. Wh hetero you've got the whole procreation thing ( yeah I know adoption ect.)

I'd be up for civil unions. But when you amke all marriages legal then you cant favor hetero marriages in say adoption proceedings. And i think hetero couples should have an advantage there. Ummm...what-EVAH.:p I don't think hetero should get special treatment, but that seems to be the issue. People are trying to protect their priviledged status, in a country that has usually leaned towards maximum legal equality.

[Silicon]

Is there circular reasoning there, TMY?

Heteros should be allowed to marry because of procreation

Sterile hetero couples can still get married and maybe adopt.

Homo couples shouldn't be able to get married even if they can adopt

Homo couples shouldn't be able to adopt kids as easily as heteros.


Are you wanting to limit homo adoption just so you can eliminate the argument that gays raising kids should have equal rights to straights? You trying to close the circle, and deny folks rights (to adoption) just so you can deny them rights (to marriage).



Isn't that circular?

If the reason behind marriage is procreation in your mind, but you allow the loophole for sterile heteros, why not sterile homos?

Are you saying homos don't raise kids as well as heteros? You saying that my wife's mother is unfit?


BTW, Gay people have biological children too, not just adopted ones.

Gay people (esp women) have a lot of fertility options at their disposal. So they have about the same ability to have biological children as straight couples. You saying that those families with children should have lesser rights than straight families with NO children?

Kinda throws out your "procreation" argument, doesn't it?

[whitefork]

Well said, Shane. It appears that several years will pass before a constitutional amendment can be cobbled together, put on a ballot, and be voted on. By then, we may have so many same-sex marriages that unlinking them will be impossible.

I sure hope so. Massachusetts is a strange place, but sometimes we get it right.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Silicon
Is there circular reasoning there, TMY?

Heteros should be allowed to marry because of procreation

Sterile hetero couples can still get married and maybe adopt.

Homo couples shouldn't be able to get married even if they can adopt

Homo couples shouldn't be able to adopt kids as easily as heteros.


Are you wanting to limit homo adoption just so you can eliminate the argument that gays raising kids should have equal rights to straights? You trying to close the circle, and deny folks rights (to adoption) just so you can deny them rights (to marriage).



Isn't that circular?

If the reason behind marriage is procreation in your mind, but you allow the loophole for sterile heteros, why not sterile homos?

Are you saying homos don't raise kids as well as heteros? You saying that my wife's mother is unfit?


BTW, Gay people have biological children too, not just adopted ones.

Gay people (esp women) have a lot of fertility options at their disposal. So they have about the same ability to have biological children as straight couples. You saying that those families with children should have lesser rights than straight families with NO children?

Kinda throws out your "procreation" argument, doesn't it?

I think a big purpose for legal marriage is the legitimizing kids and inheritence rights.

Im not trying to ban anyone from adopting or having kids. And NO I never said gays are unfit parents. But I do think that hetro couple situation should be perferred over homosexual couple. Just as I think (and is widely accepted) that its better to have couples rasing kids than to have single parents. Thats not the same as saying single parents are unfit.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
The point of marriage laws is to create inequality.

Which is exactly why they shouldn't exist.

Personally, I dont think gay marriage is equal to hetero.

Well, in a Constitutional Republic, you don't get to force what you think on other people.

Wh hetero you've got the whole procreation thing

What about a sterile hetero couple? Is theirs not an equal marriage?

But when you amke all marriages legal then you cant favor hetero marriages in say adoption proceedings. And i think hetero couples should have an advantage there.

Why?

[Tmy]

I think its better to have a mother an father figure. The child can learn different things from both parents.

This is nothing novel. Why do you think we allow non married or divorce people to have visitation with the kids. Its not cause they own the childeren. We believe that its a good idea for the child to know its parents. Its the childs best interest, not the parent.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
I think a big purpose for legal marriage is the legitimizing kids and inheritence rights.

Who needs to "legitimize" kids? Are you saying that some kids should be held into a higher order than others just because you agree with their parents' relationships?

And inheritance rights is what we have wills for.

But I do think that hetro couple situation should be perferred over homosexual couple.

Again, why?

Just as I think (and is widely accepted) that its better to have couples rasing kids than to have single parents. Thats not the same as saying single parents are unfit.

But it IS the same thing as saying they should be treated differently. You want to give one group a preference for adoption based solely on their relationship status.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tmy
I think its better to have a mother an father figure. The child can learn different things from both parents.

This is nothing novel. Why do you think we allow non married or divorce people to have visitation with the kids. Its not cause they own the childeren. We believe that its a good idea for the child to know its parents. Its the childs best interest, not the parent. Does that mean that if one spouse dies, the children have to be put up for adoption?

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Zero
Does that mean that if one spouse dies, the children have to be put up for adoption? If the father dies his wife needs to marry his closest unmarried male relative, and if the mother dies the father has to marry an 18 year old exotic dancer. Sound fair?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
If the father dies his wife needs to marry his closest unmarried male relative, and if the mother dies the father has to marry an 18 year old exotic dancer. Sound fair? Sure does!!

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


But it IS the same thing as saying they should be treated differently. You want to give one group a preference for adoption based solely on their relationship status.

Well.........YES and No. Its not soley on their status. What should we do, have first come first serve adoption?

As for having a mon n dad. I think its good for a child to have both gender roles to learn from. When one is missing I think that effects childrens upbringing.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Well said, Shane. It appears that several years will pass before a constitutional amendment can be cobbled together, put on a ballot, and be voted on.

Good. Changing the constitution should be a long, painful process, such that it requires extensive resolve to make it happen. You should not be able to change the constitution as a flavor of the week whim.

Two years from now, when the end of civilization hasn't occured, this will be a non-issue.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Two years from now, when the end of civilization hasn't occured, this will be a non-issue. And if civilization has ended, it'll still be a non-issue. what we call a win-win situation.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Tmy
I think its better to have a mother an father figure. The child can learn different things from both parents.

This is nothing novel. Why do you think we allow non married or divorce people to have visitation with the kids. Its not cause they own the childeren. We believe that its a good idea for the child to know its parents. Its the childs best interest, not the parent.


And yet you want to strip that very right from the children of gay parents. Interesting.


I think it's fine and dandy to have a mother AND a father figure. Who says those roles can't be fulfilled by two people of the same sex? IE: The nurturer and the breadwinner. The Cook and the Carpenter. The Soap Opera fan and the Sports fan.

Myself? I was raised by my mother. Alone. Is it preferable to you that my mother was alone and straight, rather than in a supporting, loving relationship with another person (who might have happened to be a woman)?

Was the fact that I was being raised with the absence of a father figure, preferable to having 2 women, so at least I didn't grow up all strange and funny inside, not knowing what kind of man I was supposed to become? Is that really how you think human social and sexual development works? If so, you really need to go back to college.


Edited to add:

My mother WAS the nurturer, the breadwinner, the cook, the carpenter, the soap-opera fan and the sports fan. I love you, mom, you didn't come up short in any of those categories.

Maybe that's why I'm not so stressed about gay parents, or gay marriage. I know that one woman alone can raise a man, so two probably wouldn't do such a bad job.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well.........YES and No. Its not soley on their status.

Yes, it is! You said specifically that heterosexual couples should be preferred over homosexual couples. You said it.

[billydkid]

Hey, gay people can get married. They just can't get married to each other. Seriously, in a long marriage discussion we had a while back I said essentially what Shane said - the government has business even KNOWING or caring whether we are married or not. Somehow limited government has come to mean having government deeply involved in every single aspect of our lives.

[The idea]

Does the government need to know whether any given person is male or female? Why bother with Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms, etc.? It would simplify a lot of forms to just have a single title for everyone.

[Zep]

Originally posted by The idea
Does the government need to know whether any given person is male or female? Why bother with Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms, etc.? It would simplify a lot of forms to just have a single title for everyone. Like "Citizen" for example, or "Comrade"...

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Silicon



And yet you want to strip that very right from the children of gay parents. Interesting.


I think it's fine and dandy to have a mother AND a father figure. Who says those roles can't be fulfilled by two people of the same sex? IE: The nurturer and the breadwinner. The Cook and the Carpenter. The Soap Opera fan and the Sports fan.

Myself? I was raised by my mother. Alone. Is it preferable to you that my mother was alone and straight, rather than in a supporting, loving relationship with another person (who might have happened to be a woman)?

Was the fact that I was being raised with the absence of a father figure, preferable to having 2 women, so at least I didn't grow up all strange and funny inside, not knowing what kind of man I was supposed to become? Is that really how you think human social and sexual development works? If so, you really need to go back to college.


Edited to add:

My mother WAS the nurturer, the breadwinner, the cook, the carpenter, the soap-opera fan and the sports fan. I love you, mom, you didn't come up short in any of those categories.

Maybe that's why I'm not so stressed about gay parents, or gay marriage. I know that one woman alone can raise a man, so two probably wouldn't do such a bad job.

Then maybe we should encourage bigamy. If 2 mothers do such a great job then 1 dad and 4 moms must do even better.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


Yes, it is! You said specifically that heterosexual couples should be preferred over homosexual couples. You said it.

I said they should have an advantage. There are many factors that go into adoption. Im not saying "Oh your gay, then you lose."

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy


I said they should have an advantage. There are many factors that go into adoption. Im not saying "Oh your gay, then you lose."

Doesn't that violate "equal protection"??



From an internet site for a gay and lesbian adoption rights petition:

"Studies have shown that there are no negative effects on adopted children raised by homosexual adults. However, homophobia and ignorance still prevail throughout the US. The State of Florida makes it illegal for homosexuals to adopt and other states such as Mississippi and Utah make it very difficult. The hypocrisy in states like Florida is laughable although they still trust homosexuals as long-term foster parents they do not allow them to adopt. They even allow substance abusers to apply. Such discrimination violates the right of homosexuals to adopt as protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. By signing this petition, which will be sent to US lawmakers, you show your disgust at these discriminatory laws."

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Tmy
As for having a mon n dad. I think its good for a child to have both gender roles to learn from. When one is missing I think that effects childrens upbringing.

Ah, so you find the preservation of gender roles important. Interesting.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Tmy


Well.........YES and No. Its not soley on their status. What should we do, have first come first serve adoption?

As for having a mon n dad. I think its good for a child to have both gender roles to learn from. When one is missing I think that effects childrens upbringing.

Here's a radical thought, how about who would do the best job for the child? Based on the individual, not a stereotype.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Doesn't that violate "equal protection"??

i]

I dont think it violates equal protection any more than using finanical status as a factor in adoption.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy


I dont think it violates equal protection any more than using finanical status as a factor in adoption.

Other than ensuring that the adopters meet some minimum earning requirement (that amount, x, that is necessary to raise a child), financial status shouldn't be a factor.

[Tmy]

How about NOTHING be a factor in adoptions. Well just toss the kids in a vending machine and anyone can take them home.

Weres that annoying "rolling eyes" emoticon when ya need it.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well just toss the kids in a vending machine and anyone can take them home.It's called a "uterus".

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
How about NOTHING be a factor in adoptions. Well just toss the kids in a vending machine and anyone can take them home.

Weres that annoying "rolling eyes" emoticon when ya need it.

Other than mental health, criminal record, and minimum necessary income, what factors do YOU propose?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tmy


Then maybe we should encourage bigamy. If 2 mothers do such a great job then 1 dad and 4 moms must do even better. And where is the problem, exactly? There is historical precedent for it, after all...it WOULD be a good thing for kids, in fact.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Tmy


Then maybe we should encourage bigamy. If 2 mothers do such a great job then 1 dad and 4 moms must do even better.

Or how about 3 women and a STRAW MAN.


Or 3 women, a straw man and a chimp that travel from town to town and solve crimes!



If you notice my silly tone, it's because I'm done arguing with you, since you jumped to a straw man. Polygamy isn't what's currently on the path toward being legalized. You just threw it on the barbie for the Yeeech factor of it.

But yes, people in communes can also raise children just fine. As long as those children are protected and cared for, it's not of the government's business how many mommys live in the house.

[Silicon]

Another note on why the slippery slope to polygamy isn't relevant to the subject at hand, and is merely a convenient smoke screen, strawman, what have you:


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-rauch081001.shtml


Johnathan Rauch, writing in the National Review:


Liberalism holds that similarly situated people should be similarly treated by law. Americans increasingly understand that a gay man who is allowed to marry a woman is not situated similarly to a straight man who is allowed to marry a woman. Nor is a gay man who wants to marry a man situated similarly to a straight man who wants to marry three women or a man who wants to marry his dog or his Volkswagen; he is situated similarly to a heterosexual man who wants to marry one woman. Saying that gay marriage leads to polygamy is no more logically coherent than saying that if blacks (say) demand and are given one vote, whites (say) will inevitably demand and be given two.


That makes very good sense.

[Tmy]

The reason I bring up the bigamy stuff is to draw out people who are for gay marriage but against bigamy. If your cool wh both then that shoots the argument out of the water.

But if your good with one and not the other I find that hypocritical.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Tmy
But if your good with one and not the other I find that hypocritical.

I don't think that's automatically true. It would depend on your reasoning.


What if you were for gay marriage because you yourself are gay, and you want to get married to your sweetheart, but you are opposed to polygamy because you are morally against it?

Why can't people be morally okay with one and morally NOT okay with the other? Is it a rule that everyone must either share all the same moral values with the majority of society, or DISCARD ALL the moral values of society?

That is a false dichotomy.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Silicon
Or how about 3 women and a STRAW MAN.

Or 3 women, a straw man and a chimp that travel from town to town and solve crimes!

Finally some creativity! If you can expand on that premise a bit, we might have the basis for a viable TV show.