My problem comes in when judges rule on the limits of their own constitutional power.

If this were any other issue, 95% of the people in FioreLand would be screaming "Err on the side of democracy! Let the people decide and not one man!"

But, since man will fight more for his interests than for his rights, as Napoleon sagely pointed out, this same 95% are endorsing the happy, happy precedent of divesting themselves of their democratic right... for the oh-so-well-thought-out reason that Judge Walker is telling them what they want to hear.

> If you would so kindly read up on the history of marriage you will find out that marriage within the United States has been held as a fundamental right, for all people (this does include LGBT couples as well) fourteen times by the supreme court since the middle 1800's.

..."marriage" being the cornerstone of the nuclear family and well worth "fundamental" protection.

With gay marriage, the whole notion of "nuclear family", with a mother and father bearing and rearing offspring, goes right out the window, along with any precedents for "fundamental protection".

Precedent out the window? Not specifically addressed by the constitution?

Put it to a vote.

Society says "no".

Q.E.D.

> You will also find out that the Christian faith, wanted nothing to do with marriage until the early 1200's because it contrary to the proliferation of the christian dogma.

This is... not quite the dumbest thing I've ever read on Mr. Fiore's site.

I'll simply nod and agree with you that the pages upon pages of scripture in the Old Testament and New Testament concerning marriage, as well as the role of marriage in establishing of the Holy Roman Empire, Medieval Europe, and virtually every power or principality in existence at the time, were sweet nothings that "the Christian faith" wanted nothing to do with until the 13th century.

> It was created by "families" (same-sex couples are also families) to protect themselves from both the despotism of the church, and the tyranny of the state.

...in the 13th century

...under the supervision of leprechauns

...in a time when magical unicorns still roamed the Earth.

> And in Fioreland 2.0 (only slightly less delusional that Bush's OppositeLand), gay couples sit in their house eating eggs all day rather than actively propositioning laws, disseminating literature, throwing perverse celebrations, promoting wrong lifestyles, championing pro-gay curricula, influencing government, militantly infesting anything to do with arts or culture, and flaunting their right to spread destructive and immoral ideas in spite of what anyone thinks.

You got raped by a priest... is that where this boogeyman nonsense is coming from?

> Maybe Mr. Fiore will care to throw in his views on polygamy, incest, and bestiality? After all, I can picture a man and his horse sitting down to eat eggs all day too.

I'll play.

Polygamy? What the hell do I care? What's the percentage on adultery? Let's face it, the paragon you're trying to defend doesn't exist. If people are happy living in a polygamous relationship, who am I to interfere between consenting adults? This is a free country after all. And there's thousands of years worth of data supporting that one. Monogamous relationships are the recent biological aberration. Or maybe you're a creationist, too? Oh, that would be wonderful. How quaint!

Incest? Well, at least it wasn't pedophelia. I think this would actually be a cause for worry if a significant percentage of the population actually practiced it. They don't. But thanks for playing! :)

Bestiality? 'Cause raping a horse = marriage between two consenting adults. Yeah. Not even a starting point on that one. Thanks for playing! :)

Combined Reply to the Following Three Responses

> If you want to deny marriage rights to certain segment of the population, then what's to stop someone else from deciding that some of the rights YOU hold dear should no long apply to you

Very little, save the society I live in.

Hence why wars are fought, blood is shed, and 'nations' exist.

> So, if I applied the same twisted logic you're using to justify your position, I could say that you shouldn't be allowed to marry or have sex or even reproduce.

Firstly, believing an act is wrong is not summarily "twisted logic".

Secondly, if you had the power to enforce your above sterilization policy, you could indeed "say that..." whatever you wanted.

Finally, since it isn't painfully obvious, democracy was/is implemented so that I can vote for legal activities, you can do the same, and we agree to function under the resulting contract rather than hacking each other apart to enforce our views.

The "moral absolutes are double-edged sword and are therefore flawed" argument was visited by me half a dozen times in QM. Here's the link to QM again, for anyone interested. Mr. Fiore unfortunately doesn't provide permalinks to specific comments.

The rest of your tirade... well, at least it demonstrates there are some moral absolutes that even you believe in. ;)

> Conversely, this is not true of all gay couples. I have several gay friends that just live their lives and don't actively campaign for anything.

I do too. Since I live in downtown Toronto, maybe 15% of the individuals I interact with on a day-to-day basis fall into the LGB crowd, presumably.

This doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is immoral. I do not want educators teaching my children that homosexuality is "acceptable" and "inevitable". I do not want people parading in the streets to demonstrate their pride and iniquity. I do not want editorialists falsely claiming that homosexuality is harmless, "all natural", or exclusively "practiced in the comfort of one's home".

And on this particular issue, I do not want homosexuals claiming that an ancient sacrament can be stripped of all religious and moral significance by a group of people who are not content with a secular "civil union".

> As a psychologist for many years I have seen and come to accept that the human race is surprisingly resilient to open mindedness and general altruism towards one another.

Have you considered, sir, that opposing wrong practices in one's society might in fact be a greater kind of "altruism" than indulging in a laissez-faire "let it all go to pot" mentality?

> ...'Constitution' but they always devolve into 'militantly infesting' and 'a man and his horse'...

Perhaps because the constitutional arguments have been flogged to death in QM, because 'militantly infesting' is both poignant and accurate, and because 'a man and his horse' is the first step in assessing how far gone one's opponent is.

For example, if a bigot poses the question on whether sir believes polygamy, incest, bestiality, or mechaphilia are "wrong", sir's response ("yes", sir acknowledges the existence of moral absolutes, or "no", it isn't worth the time to debate sir) helps those hilarious bigots to filter out dead weight opponents.

Regards to All,

COTO

So, you think gay couples promote "wrong lifestyles" and "spread destructive and immoral ideas", do you? You mean ideas like equal protection under the law and equal rights for all?

You know, your way of thinking is a double-edged sword: If you want to deny marriage rights to certain segment of the population, then what's to stop someone else from deciding that some of the rights YOU hold dear should no long apply to you? I mean, you're a homophobic person, yes? How would you like it if Californians passed a law that denies homophobes the right to marry? I mean, I disagree with your "lifestyle." I think you "spread destructive and immoral ideas." So, if I applied the same twisted logic you're using to justify your position, I could say that you shouldn't be allowed to marry or have sex or even reproduce. I could propose a law that requires that all homophobes be chemically castrated because your lifestyle is "deviant" and "offends nature" and all the usual talking points that homophobes like you regularly use to support your homophobic nonsense.

Thank goodness there's a constitution that prevents people like me from denying people like you your constitutional right to reproduce. Can you imagine what would happen if we had to chemically castrate all the homophobes? Imagine the expense!

I'll have to go over some of your arguments as found in Quasi-Marriage again, if I recall you wrote quite a lot there.

From what I understand, the main argument in favor of allowing state sponsored marriages is that the marriage license implies certain freedoms that "Civil Union" does not. Thus, the state would be actively discriminating based on two people's personal private life. This of course would be an interferrance of government in an area to which it has no logical reason to interfere. I'm sure you would agree that such governemnt interferance would be a violation of freedom and thus unconstitutional.

I'm not a lawyer myself and can't speak with any real athority on the law in regards to marrage. Nevertheless, I have yet to hear an arguement (backed up by facts) as to why the state should discriminate against gay Marrage.

As to your Fiorland 1.0 comments, I agree. I find sometimes Mark over extends himself in his comparisons. Racism and Relgion are seprate issues. Period.

Gay couples are sometimes active because a large segment of society actively pushed back. This is just like the varying protests and militancy of feminists or African Americans (I'm comparing here to racial and gender conflicts! - I just did a Fiore). Conversely, this is not true of all gay couples. I have several gay friends that just live their lives and don't actively campaign for anything.

See, these are your ideas of destruction and immorality. After living downtown Toronto for a year I got to know a lot of gay individuals. Some were very friendly and easy to get along with, some were not - just as in any straight individuals. My views of the world were turned around when I even made friends with a few of these guys. We went to the gym, went out for a drink, I got to know their significant others', and we shared some common interests together. After I got over my own prejudices, I never felt threatened. These guys understood I was straight and treated me like any other individual.

I encourage you to get involved with the Gay community Champion, it might change your ideas when you actually get to know some of these guys. You might even find yourself second guessing your original views!

A child has a better and more mature outlook on others than yourself COTO. So sad that an innocent and ignorant child can see who others are, while a supposedly mature adult with an opinion, and only an opinion, cannot.

Let me leave you with a quote that I hope you will not forget when you, like others before you, will be found on the wrong side of history in only a few short years.

"It takes little to no effort to accept reality for what it is, but it takes a great deal of effort to fight against it."

As a psychologist for many years I have seen and come to accept that the human race is surprisingly resilient to open mindedness and general altruism towards one another. The more I study the more I realize that if we keep allowing satisfaction and gratification with our own thoughts, our own beliefs, and our own traditions; instead of studying the questions in our hearts and in our minds; we will never win the war on oppression; or any minority. If we continue to fear that for which we should question, those questions in our hearts and minds, our end as humanity… is inevitable.

Bigots are hilarious. They may begin their argument with allusions to the 'Constitution' but they always devolve into 'militantly infesting' and 'a man and his horse'.