Consistency

Tom's quotes.......

"Marriage" is just a term.. and I really don't care about terms. They are meaningless. What matters is what they represent.

There is no religious marriage in American law. It's all civil law - and it has nothing to do with religion. Each particular religion is more than welcome to define it they way they like..

Everyone should be governed by the the same law.. and what you call it is irrelevant.

Glenzilla addresses the court ruling in California, here.

Jennifer somehow (reading comprehension ftw) thought I was being "inconsistent". As Greenwald describes;

(4) The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into "marriage." It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between "marriage" (as a religious institution) and "civil unions" (as a secular institution) -- i.e., that California law could leave the definition of "marriage" to religious institutions and only offer and recognize "civil unions" for legal purposes -- provided that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining "marriage" for religious purposes.

His entire post is well worth reading, as it describes what it means to live in a Constitutional Republic. The Christians clearly do not like the American system of government. I don't think the Christians will read much beyond the first sentence because it gets into issues of law, and has nothing to do with "belief" or Jesus or the Bible.

Jennifer (and again I'm using Jennifer as a generic Christian opposed to same-sex marriage) is not interested in the specific legal issues. She's just a sheep following the hatred of the herd. As they've said, over and over, nothing anyone can say will change their minds - not even the actual law that governs these issues can change their mind.

The point is that whoever wants to make a reasoned argument about the court's ruling must -- by definition -- familiarize themselves with the relevant issues, and there is only one relevant issue here: does the California State Constitution bar the law in question? The way our government and system of laws were created, judges have no discretion if the answer to that question is "yes." They're required to strike down the law. As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 78, regarding the duties of the federal judiciary: "wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."

Why do the Christians hate America and our form of government?

Sullivan writes about our Constitutional Republic. He's written numerous posts about this issue, and like Greenwald, describes the reason behind the ruling. He also notes that a majority of the judges are Republicans.

The California court cited the 1948 Perez v Sharp anti-miscegenation law ruling prominently in its decision today. If you believe that courts should have no role in opposing public opinion in areas of social policy, then the polls at the time make for interesting reading. Ten years after the 1948 ruling, Gallup fund that 94 percent of white Americans opposed inter-racial marriage. As late as 1967, when Loving vs Virginia was decided, a majority opposed it. That remained the case through the 1970s. In fact, the Perez v Sharp ruling was fifty years ahead of public opinion.

The whole issue is just dripping in irony. Doug absolutely hates gay people. It's pathological how much he fixates on it. As I've said, Doug thinks about gay sex more than I do and I'm gay.

The irony, of course, is that the Loon Brigade thinks that society was so much better in the past. They insist that our culture is going to hell in a hand basket. However, in 1958, 94% of the American public would have been opposed to Doug marrying his very own wife.

Is 1958 the time in America that is so much better than today?

Perhaps if Doug had been the one thrown in jail for daring to marry a Hispanic, he might have a different point of view. But he wasn't, and he doesn't. He's just another run-of-the-mill Christian freak, inconsistent, illogical, immoral.