Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

FL: 38% Crist, 36% Rubio, 16% Meek (AIF 7/31-8/1)

Topics: Florida , poll

McLaughlin & Associates (R) for Associated Industries of Florida
7/31-8/1/10; 600 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Orlando Sentinel blog post)

Florida

2010 Senate
38% Crist (i), 36% Rubio (R), 16% Meek (D) (chart)
37% Crist (i), 37% Rubio (R), 16% Greene (D) (chart)

 

Comments
DCM:

Q - What does it tell you when the best this [R} pollster can produce is to only massage their candidate [Rubio] into almost a tie through this partisan-poll for the right-wing C of C [Associated Industries of Florida]...

A - Crist is actually up BIG as all other legit pollsters are showing !!! and Charlie's lead + favorables are on the rise while we watch Marco whatshis name fading away...

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Bye Bye Charlie.

____________________

melvin:

Am praying the GOP keeps talking about doing away with the 14th amendment.It means 80% of Black people is going to lose they're Citizenship.Interracial marriage will be illegal.Hispanics,Blacks,Asians and Whites cant attend the same school

____________________

RuizMau:

My God hear the bitterness and frustration from that liberal in the first post.

They really can't handle the real prospect of losing power and the the American people have rejected their agenda and President.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Wow... melvin. Wow.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Crist won't win. If he does it will be suckering enough democrats into thinking he is a dem-leaning centrist.

____________________

StatyPolly:

RuizMau,

I think that first poster simply hates Mexicans.

____________________

melvin:

Are we nervous: Karl Rove,Lou Dobbs,Jebb Bush,and Mitt Roomney is pleading with the Republican party to stop going on Major Networks talking about the 14th amendment.I just cant see the Hispanic community giving the GOP more then 20% of they're vote after this.

____________________

DCM:

StatyPolly

U R a moran... lol

Rubio is cuban, but really who cares about race ???

We are talking about the batsheet crazy teabaggers who are flaming out acroos the nation [Angle, Paul, Rubio, et al]

____________________

Field Marshal:

Better than those batsheet crazy liberals that are flaming out across the nation [Meeks (who?), Conway, Coakley, Corzine, Deeds, Feingold, Boxer]

And statypolly was making fun of your fellow libies who are OBSESSED with race and used the same notion that they do; if you are against the policies and ideology of a minority, then you clearly hate all those same minorities. i.e. Disapprove of Obama? Clearly a racist against blacks. Talk to melvin, farleft and the other crazy libs on the board about it.

____________________

DCM:

PROP 8 down in flames !!!

a GREAT day to be a real american !!!

Willful suppression of minority rights = unconstitutional

same fate awaits the spiteful AZ 'law'

____________________

Field Marshal:

Judge just threw out Prop 8 in California. Same fate as the AZ law. Gonna eventually go to the Supreme Court which will rule, 5-4, in favor of both. Same old, same old from the kooky left coast judges. Yawn.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Thank God the Judge Threw out Prop 8. If this goes to the Supreme court and it is a 5-4 decision, I predict there will be blood, and it will be deserved. This is a Democracy and a place where states have the rights to make other kinds of decisions like guns. Fair is fair and there has to be some justice in a state where gay rights has been a fight longer than any other state. This isn't Iowa or MN, or Maine, it is CA, and it is time for justice for GLBT citizens.

____________________

lat:

FM,

I cannot wait for the day when gays get the right to marry if for the only reason that the evangelical nutjob right will go berserk and that will be a very happy day indeed.

____________________

Dave:

It will be fun to see Obama ignore Meek if he happens to win the primary.

____________________

bonncaruso:

The best a REPUBLICAN pollster can do is get Rubio close to Crist, but can't put him over the top.

I warned many times: never underestimate the power of the incumbency.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Gonna eventually go to the Supreme Court which will rule, 5-4, in favor of both."

You might try reading this, by Ted Olson, who was Bush's solicitor general. It's the strongest argument I've seen regarding gay marriage.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

The most persuasive arguments, imo, are the unconstitutionality of revoking rights and the peculiarities of CA's laws regarding marriage.

"California's Proposition 8 is particularly vulnerable to constitutional challenge, because that state has now enacted a crazy-quilt of marriage regulation that makes no sense to anyone. California recognizes marriage between men and women, including persons on death row, child abusers, and wife beaters. At the same time, California prohibits marriage by loving, caring, stable partners of the same sex, but tries to make up for it by giving them the alternative of "domestic partnerships" with virtually all of the rights of married persons except the official, state-approved status of marriage. Finally, California recognizes 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the months between the state Supreme Court's ruling that upheld gay-marriage rights and the decision of California's citizens to withdraw those rights by enacting Proposition 8.

So there are now three classes of Californians: heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex couples who cannot get married but can live together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex couples who are now married but who, if they divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot stand."

The 14th amendment should protect against the rescission of rights, which is what prop 8 did. But conservatives want to change the 14th amendment, so they may fulfill the long-lost desires of the dixie democrats of the reconstruction era.

If prison inmates can get married, I see no reason gay couples should not. It is blatantly discriminatory that they cannot.

____________________

Crimsonite:

melvin
first of all, the only part of the 14th amendment that would be repealed is the citizenship clause so that congress determines it and its not some magical property bestowed on people just because the moment of birth occurred within a certain peace of land. And, laws can't act retroactively, so all the people already citizens really can't be uncitizened because of the constitutional provision against ex-post facto laws. So stop spouting pure lies.

And Flap,
Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounded as if you feel each state has the right to make its own laws. One, so why shouldn't states be able to opt out of federal laws the don't like? and more importantly, California did make a law, in fact a constitutional provision that limited marriage. Are you saying they can makes their own laws except what you don;t like. How is 1 judge's opinion allowing a states to make a decision.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

The most hilarious thing...

is that GOP's website hails the 14th amendment as one of its accomplishments!

http://www.gop.com/index.php/learn/accomplishment/

____________________

nick283:

Wow, Ironic that this finding a fake right to gay marriage in the constitution may lead to it being explicitly forbidden in the constitution. I don't think the constitution should be amended lightly, but when one judge is allowed to have his own personal agenda override the votes of 7 million californians, something is really really wrong.

____________________

Just a point of fact for the poster who railed against "liberal left west coast judges!" The judge who made the great & courageous ruling today on California's Prop 8 was a Republican, appointed by the first President Bush.

And the lawyer who fought for constitutional rights for all Americans in this case, and was on the winning side, was none other than Ted Olsen, who led the fight in behalf of the second President Bush in Bush v Gore before the Supreme Court.

So much for "lefty liberals!" Why do you right winger posters here hate constitutional rights for all Americans?

____________________

nick283:

The 14th amendment was one of the GOPs great accomplishments. Unfortunately, federal judges have decided it means whatever the hell they want it to mean. Definitely didnt see the part about gay marriage or abortion in there.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"so why shouldn't states be able to opt out of federal laws the don't like?"

The civil war decided that question. The 'opt out' side lost.

Why don't they just opt out of paying federal taxes? That'd be awesome. You already want to opt out of section 1 of the 14th amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

All persons means all persons. It doesn't mean some persons. If you want it to mean some persons, you have to pass a new amendment. A federal or state law that says otherwise would be unconstitutional.

It's amazing to me that the same people who proclaim how important it is to remain true to the constitution have absolutely no problem with disregarding part of it and the way it's been interpreted for 145 years.

This is WORSE than what conservatives accuse the liberals of doing. Conservatives accuse liberals of giving the government powers that the constitution doesn't specify (but does not specifically prohibit).

But you want to straight up take away a right. Birthright citizenship is American tradition.

____________________

nick283:

Actually judges are supposed to be non-partisan, but he was appointed by the first Bush. Judge is also gay by the way, but i suppose that couldnt possibly have biased his decision. Why do you liberals hate democracy so much? Funny how an amendment that was designed to guarantee the rights of blacks was twisted to make their right to vote not matter in this case.

____________________

tjampel:

@nelcon1551:
And while we're at it let's also note that the Judge who ruled AZ's immigration law unconstitutional in places, was a nominee of John Kyl.

@FM
So...according to you John Kyl nominates kooky left wing judges, the guy who argued Bush v Gore...for George W Bush... is a kooky left wing activist, and the Bush appointed judge who decided Prop 8 is yet another kooky left wing activist judge.

I guess this gives you real credibility when you talk about libruls and left wingers.


____________________

Farleftandproud:

Ted Olson is a good guy. I think he deserves the Nobel Peace prize for his attempts to put conservative social principles aside, and apply the Rule of law in CA to do what is right and States rights isn't just for conservatives; it is also for progressives. If a state like VT, CT or CA wants to create a law they have just as much right, as other states.

Okay, I have been a critic of Arizona's law, but the constitution has clearer laws on citizenship in the 14th ammendment, as well as "illegal searches and seizures". I can't apply same sex marriage to the same doctrines, which is why it has not yet been taken to the supreme court.

____________________

Gtfan4ever:

"But you want to straight up take away a right. Birthright citizenship is American tradition"

Pretty sure any law dealing with citizenship would leave the 14th Amendment in tact but would add to it with certain criteria such as the parents have to atleast be legal residents.

____________________

nick283:

The law in California passed thanks to the support of African Americans and Latinos, and then a white judge overturns it. Wow, talk about disenfranchising minority voters.

____________________

nick283:

Headline should read "white judge overturns law that passed due to massive minority support"

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Yes, the judge was Republican who ruled against Prop 8.

As for laws that states don't want to abide by, like having to buy insurance. Of course states like Missouri or Texas or Arkansas can vote on a ballot question to make their state not have to abide by new healthcare laws. I think even in these states, there will be some angry people in power who would fight it, but certainly the right wing Americans who seem okay with the fact their states are ranked low in life expectancy, health and have at least 20 percent uninsured. Many of these people have not seen doctors in years and they are not homeless bums and are not on welfare.


Most other Democracies are at least unselfish about things. Our country has too many people who put themselves first, and their own interests first. It is clearly an extremely selfish country.

The best thing Obama could do right now, is to have a national televised press conference and agree that Fall of 2011 is the longest we can keep our troops in Afghanistan. Nato and the UN could stay there if they would like, but if they want to leave, I would not blame them one bit.

This would be a move to get Obama's voters behind him, and it would again force the GOP into being war hawks. The war is not popular anymore, and if the Neo-cons campaigned on staying the course, it would be a clear contrast with the message from the tea baggers who have tried to distance themselves from Bush and cheney's wars.

____________________

tjampel:

StatyPolly:

"RuizMau,

I think that first poster simply hates Mexicans."

Just curious; on what basis do you say that? It seems like a total non sequitur

____________________

lat:

Homophobia at it's best! Get used to it you bigoted hypocritical assholes because it's going to become a right over the years, but in the meantime keep spewing your hateful crap.

____________________

nick283:

FLAP, I dont know what his personal partisan affiliation is, but a judge is a nonpartisan position. FLAP, why do you support a white judge overturning a law that passed due to overwhelming support from african americans. I think you have referred to others as being part of the KKK, yet you support decisions that disenfranchise african american voters?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

The only conclusion that we can come to re: the prop 8 and AZ law cases is that either 1) republicans are bad at choosing judges that will be sympathetic to their issues, or 2) these particular republican-sponsored laws are discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.

UNLESS they can change the 14th amendment so it won't get in their way.

Or in the case of the AZ law, the 4th amendment and Hines v. Davidowitz (1941).

____________________

Farleftandproud:

"nick283:
The law in California passed thanks to the support of African Americans and Latinos, and then a white judge overturns it. Wow, talk about disenfranchising minority voters.
"

Well rather than taking it to the Supreme Court, I think it should get on the ballot this NOvember, to ban gay marriage. I know that these things have never been a success for the gay community, but I think many of those who questioned it 2 years ago, have a different opinion of it. I think more blacks and hispanics would support it this time around, because they have seen other kinds of discrimination from the far Republican right, and they will be more sympathetic with people who are underdogs and have had a rough time like the gay community.

I am 100 percent straight and never questioned my sexuality; hell, Nikki Haley is my pin up girl!!!!

I feel for the gay community because they have been victimized by the same types of far right characters who oppress health care reform, took us to Iraq, want to criminalize abortion, question Obama's citizenship (Some of them) and I am going to be on the side of people I feel have suffered from policies of arrogant conservatives.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I cannot wait for the day when gays get the right to marry if for the only reason that the evangelical nutjob right will go berserk and that will be a very happy day indeed.

Just like the day that prop 8 was passed in a liberal state and we saw all the left-wing nutobs protesting in front of mormon churches.

I couldn't care less about giving gays the right to marry. In the eyes of the church, me and God, marriage is between a man and a woman. And no kooky loons on the left can ever change that despite what nutty laws they conjure up.

My issue is with the courts overturning any law it doesnt like. Legislatures are basically useless now because the judicial branch can essentially change and overturn things that it doesn't like.

These crazy loons on the far-left are going to destroy the Democratic party by alienating minorities on social issues.

____________________

nick283:

for 140+ years the 14th amendment has not been construed to confer a right to gay marriage. Conservatives definitely aren't the ones who are trying to change it with respect to prop 8.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"would add to it with certain criteria such as the parents have to atleast be legal residents."

That is complete b.s. and would fly in the face of everything America has been about for years.

The civil rights act of 1866 and the 14th amendment was passed when the potential citizenship of the children of blacks and Chinese was in serious question. The only people excluded were certain Native American groups and diplomats.

____________________

Bukama:

just to clarify, Judge Walker has ruled that Prop 8 violates due process and equal protection. he did not find that homosexuals have a cosntitutional right to marry. No one has such a right. If a state decided not to license any marriages anymore (which I think they should), it would not be deprivation of a right.

Judge Walker ruled that he was unconvinced that the "legislators" (in this case a majority of the people in CA who voted) had a "rational basis" for treating same sex marriages differently than hetero marriages. Governments are required to treat all citizens the same, unless there is a rational basis for treating them differently.

We'll see what the S.Ct says about all this. One way or the other, I would not be surprised if States stop licensing any marriages (I don't see a reason for it). Especially when polyamorous marriages start clamoring for their marriages to be recognized. If there is no rational basis for treating gay and hetero marriages differently, what is the rational basis for denying the benefits of marriage to groups of 3 or 5 or 8 who want to live and love together in committed relationships?

____________________

nick283:

ah, i see FLAP, you think black and hispanic voters are stupid and didnt know what they are doing and just need another chance? Talk about condescending. By the way, that makes it pretty obvious that you don't really think there is a constitutional issue here. I would much prefer that they vote on this again... however, i know that white liberals don't want to risk letting what happened before happen again so it won't be left to the people to decide. There is no denying the fact that this measure passed because blacks supported it overwhelmingly... it was then overturned by a white judge. Sounds like something out of the jim crow era rather than 21st century america.

____________________

melvin:

What these right-wing websites are doing is very hateful and very dangerous.The GOP is full of racist hateful people who only wants to see this Country go back to the days of Dred Scott.The right-wingers hate Minorities,they hate gay people,they hate anybody who don't look like them or believe in the things they believe in.People have the right to marry whoever they want to marry,no matter what they're sex is or they're race.Its so sad to log on to websites in read the racist hateful things people are saying on those websites.The Republican party have been overtaken by these very sick people who wants to take us back 145 years.I am so happy my Grandmother is not here to see this,because this will truly break her heart.

____________________

lat:

In the eyes of God... Exactly Field Marshall because you have had a personal conversation with God to know exactly what God's feeling is on gay marriage? You know the same bullshit was said 50 years ago about interracial marriages... It's against God's will, it not natural, blah, blah, blah.

____________________

tjampel:

@nick283:

"Actually judges are supposed to be non-partisan, but he was appointed by the first Bush. Judge is also gay by the way, but i suppose that couldnt possibly have biased his decision. Why do you liberals hate democracy so much? Funny how an amendment that was designed to guarantee the rights of blacks was twisted to make their right to vote not matter in this case."

On judge being gay:

So a gay judge should recuse him or herself from any case about gays. I guess that means a white judge should recuse him or herself from any case which deals with racism against whites, since white people are directly affected? And black judges should decline to hear civil rights cases which involve blacks as well. Right? No? So, are gays just different, are they too mentally ill or unstable or bigoted or biased (as compared to white judges ruling on reverse racism claims, for example) to rule properly in cases that involve gay issues? Most of us have gotten past such views.

On constitutionality of referendum in CA

So if a referendum that says Blacks and Hispanics should pay no state income tax at all and Whites and Asians should pay more passes in CA with the help of... Blacks and Hispanics you think it would be disenfranchising those groups if it were ruled unconstitutional? Didn't think so; naturally it would be challenged and thrown out.

If a referendum is proposed and the language is defective then the entire referendum fails (unless it is severable and those clauses pass muster) due to constitutional inadequacy. Same as for any other law.

The right complains about HCR and try to strike it down through the courts, even though it was properly passed. And, you know what, you have every right to do it, just as the lawyer who argued Bush v Gore for Bush has every right to push this lawsuit that was decided today. All laws and referendums must meet constitutional standards...period.

@FM
So I guess you oppose the lawsuits against HCR on the basis that they allow courts to strike down duly passed laws. Or...do you claim that, if a law is popular with people it should not be challenged; if a law is unpopular with people it should be challenged.

Your statement about your personally knowing what marriage is, btw, has nothing to do with whether States have the right to extend marriage to whomever it sees fit. So, it's irrelevant. But you knew that.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I never said black and hispanic voters were stupid for the way they voted on prop 8 and neither do I think that some whites who voted for Obama, probably voted that way too. I wasn't always supportive of gay marriage myself when it was first an issue in Mass. The issue has had a change in public support since 2008. The polls today in CA would show that prop 8 would never pass today.

I think that the opinion would not want that on the ballot this year, and with the Marjuana ammendment on the ballot this year in CA, I think it would be a great night for progressives.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Don't get me wrong, I understand why people around most places in the US would not want marriage to be between people of the same sex. I am not sure if there has been as big of a movement in the Heartland, but there are a higher percentage of gays in CA than most other states, and base on the Democraphics, it is time to allow gay people to get marriage licenses in that state, and at least for CA put the issue to bed.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Exactly right Bukama,

The AZ law was not deemed racist or racial in anyway, despite what is going on in most liberal minds'. The AZ ruling is basically a stay as to whether or not the law would overload the system, which is more illustrative of the quality of the federal government than on the law itself.

But i would agree with you as to wondering why the government has a hand in marriage in the first place? What role does it play? They simply don't want to leave that power to the citizenry and had to consolidate it for themselves.

____________________

tjampel:

I haven't really even thought about marijuana for years (it and I never bonded), but, it just might make a difference in turnout in CA among young people and Dems, who seem to support its legalization, and might also bring out some of the more religious Blacks and Hispanics who oppose it.

It's a bigger Dem issue than Republican one overall I think; it's like a gay marriage initiative on the ballot bringing out Repubs

If it boosts Dem turnout of course...it's good for Brown and Boxer.

____________________

Bryan McFarland:

This poll is definitely suspect. Check out Barney Bishop's prediction about the outcome of the race...talk about driving the data! I'd love to see the methodology and sampling for this poll! From the Orlando Sentinel:

“ Given these results, I believe that Rubio is perfectly positioned to win this election,” said Barney Bishop III, president and CEO of AIF. “If you look at the data, there are still a good percentage of Democrats and even Republicans who have indicated they are likely to vote for Crist. However, come Election Day, I anticipate they will vote with their parties and, ultimately, the Governor will not receive the number of votes projected right now.”

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Crist will win handily regardless of how many seats the Democrats lose in the house and senate.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

@nick283

"I don't think the constitution should be amended lightly"

It can't be amended lightly. The ratification of any amendment requires support of 3/4 of the states.

Do you think any President will ever win 75% of the popular vote?

Do you think 75% of all state legislatures can win a majority up or down vote on abortion?

Right wingers need to get real . . . there will never be another Constitutional amendment.

Politically, it's a gold mine for Democrats. The right, in it's quest for purity, is pushing out the marginal groups first, starting with minorities. Old white people do not constitute a winning coalition. They're simply a vocal majority in some areas.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Here's a prediction: In less than 12 years, Texas will swear in a hispanic governor. In less than 10, Democrats will control the Texas legislature.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

That was just rumor that many minorities voted for Prop 8 in CA. I think many older white voters who voted for Obama wouldn't support this. It probably was worded so badly that many people thought they were voting to support gay marriage. That is why I think these ballot questions are ridiculous. It is worded in a way that if someone isn't paying attention, they can vote against something they support.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

What Melvin and I believe, as well as Shannon Dallas Texas, Aaron in TX and other center/left bloggers is that most western Democracies would side with us over the conservatives. Were Right and I think whatever happens in this year's elections will be a passing trend.

Nevertheless, this is America, where so many different people have a different set of what they value, and what they don't value.

Of

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Shannon you are right that Texas will move in a bluer direction, the more the GOP tries to continue their anti-hispanic agenda; New Mexico has become bluer this year according to Gallup than it was last year, and I think even in Arizona, it will backfire and Hispanics will show up big time at the polls in 2012. Obama may even possibly win Arizona, because he is a cool head, and will pass a strong immigration bill that will enforce the law without having to go on a witch hunt. The GOP tries to change the 14th ammendment and continue to look for those dangerous illegals in Arizona instead of doing their job and catching dangerous criminals. Two white men escaped from prison and one of them is still at large, and a little boy was abducted and probably won't return alive. I am sure that crime will go up the more they focus on rounding people up at the border.

What you have to do is make sure that the hispanic community is registered to vote and they take these measures very seriously. Sometimes the people who are targeted by these laws simply don't show up to vote. THe only wat this can be changed is people like us to make sure they understand the seriousness of what is going on, and voice their opinion through voting.

____________________

Gtfan4ever:

Farleft you and your possey don't even know the difference between legal and illegal when it comes to immigration. There's nothing wrong with any immigrant coming here to better themselves and be part of America but all I ask and what conservatives ask is do it legally. I mean do we really need a history lesson on all the previous generations of immigrants who came through Ellis Island and went through the process legally? Also Hispanics and blacks are not as monolithic as you or Melvin seem to think. They're smart enough to know that Obama is spending away the future of their kids and grandkids.

____________________

Thaddeus:

I love how it's always 7M people voted for it and this judge is overturning them. How about the 6.5 Million that voted against it. It was a slim margin (2%) to be passing such a sweeping Prop.


I think the right can stop with the judicial activism stuff, just look at the current SCOTUS. Now there has been some activists lately. Overturning all kinds of precedents, Stari Diasis (Wrong spelling, sorry) no longer exists to this court.

____________________

seg:

lat:
"Homophobia at it's best! Get used to it you bigoted hypocritical assholes because it's going to become a right over the years, but in the meantime keep spewing your hateful crap."

So you are saying that homophobia is going to become a right? Was that unintentional humor? I hate to think it was an expression of hatred and intolerance.

This issue could use some humor and some tolerance for others. I guess it is my solemn duty to advocate for at least the latter.

Personally, I have never cared what relationship 2 (or more) people have as long one is not brutalizing the other. I have known gays who were married in their own eyes. Three different such couples have lived within a half a block of me. I respected their relationships and their commitments to them. I thought at the time there should be a ceremony that recognizes and declares their relationship.

All of this fuss is really about calling that relationship "marriage" instead of something else. No other word will do, even if using another word would largely end the conflict.

What is disturbing to me is the hatred here of people who just want to keep the meaning of their cultural symbols. How are marriage traditionalists different from American Indians who do not want whites using Indian cultural symbols for their own ends? How is it different from Jews who do not want to be approached by Christian evangelists?

Lat, how would Jews feel if Christians decided to call birthday parties Bar Mitzvahs and Bat Mitzvahs? I suspect those Christians would be denounced for their effrontry and insensitivity. I suspect you would be in the thick of them.

How would Muslims feel if we all started saying "aliakbar" to mean "good one!" ?

If you can recognize the need for cultural sensitivity for some groups, why can you not recognize it for marriage traditionalists?

It is important to this issue to note that hardly anyone opposes civil unions anymore. Isn't that what the state actually sanctions between a man and woman? Even if they label it a marriage certificate, the state is actually treating it as a contract enforceable by the state. Those rights are mostly those of partners in a business. Other laws, not marriage ceremonies, protect the rights of children, including the right to be supported by both parents.

Again, the fact that no compromise is desired or sought suggests intolerance - by liberals. In this case, intolerance of marriage traditionalists. Marriage traditionalists generally support civil unions for gays. They can agree to say that gay partners are in a committed relationship that will be known as "brindage." Why cannot gays and those who declare themselves their advocates agree to reserve the word "marriage" for what has been considered marriage for millenia?

Would such a compromise be accepted by our friends, the liberals? I very much doubt it. The question is ... why? I strongly suspect at least a portion of this outrage is simply another attack line against conservatives.

____________________

Rockym92:

The rhetoric on this site is getting more out of hand each day.

The way people casually throw around "racist", "hateful", "evil" because they happen to disagree with them is ridiculous.

I'm a conservative, but I support gay marriage and have no problem with the legalization and taxation of marijuana, if the voters decide to pass it. (I live in mass and it is de-criminalized here) I'm against the push to repeal the birthright citizenship part of the 14th amendment, but I support the majority of Arizonas new law on illegal immigration.

I'd go into detail but I'd probably be called names by both sides here and my post will probably be drowned out and lost in all the rhetoric.

But thank you to the posters on both sides of the aisle who keep it classy here. I enjoying reading your arguments.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Gay marriage failed every time it got on the ballot for the actual voters to decide. Something like 30-35 states, I think, some very blue ones.

So one thing I take away from today's decision is that voters just got another rallying cry for the upcoming election. If they needed any.

Anchor babies is yet another issue that most average people find morally reprehensible. Other than partisans who know that they need to import voters, since they can't convince anywhere close to a majority of Americans of their ideology, how can anyone support this?

Having said that, I am not sure there isn't a better way than questioning the 14th amendment. Don't toss the anchors out. Cut the chain. That'll result in way fewer anchors being dropped here.

Where in the Constitution does it say that parents of US citizens are to be granted residency?

____________________

StatyPolly:

Great summary, Seg.

The debate absolutely is about the word, nothing else.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Actually Bukama and Field Marshal are dead wrong. Citizens of the United States have a fundamental right to marry. This is one of our strongest and earliest rights. It has been recognized as a fundamental right for hundreds of years.

In order to deny citizens a right to marry or to put restrictions on marriage, you need to overcome the most stringent test that the Supreme Court has: Strict Scrutiny. To overcome that test you must show that the law or restriction is justified by a compelling governmental interest that is narrowly tailored. The restriction must also be the least restrictive means available. This test is almost impossible to overcome. I'm going to say this flat out for you guys, there will never be a compelling governmental interest to restrict or deny marriage (I'm talking about heterosexual marriage through this whole post).

It's really shocking how conservatives on here have no idea what the constitution says, how it's interpreted, what it protects, or how it works.

Guess what conservatives, no where in the constitution is marriage mentioned, yet it's been recognized as protected by the constitution since its inception. That means we have recognized unenumerated rights (rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution) for hundreds of years. So, yes we do protect rights that aren't in the constitution just like we protect rights that are in the constitution.

Some of you guys really need to go to law school, take some history courses, or really make an effort to educate yourselves. It's quite embarrassing to speak about something only to be 100% wrong, especially when you want to "defend" the constitution or call someone or something unconstitutional, when you have no idea what is or isn't actually constitutional.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Also, if you want to educate yourselves a little, look up Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas. You could easily apply the reasoning in one or both of those cases to find gay marriage constitutional. You could also go to the 14th Amendment and the fundamental right to marriage as an effective argument.

Here's a great quote from loving. "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Here's another, "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

I got those two right off of Wikipedia. Try replacing anything to do with race with the appropriate gay references like gender. You could use those quotes verbatim today.

Also, this case was decided 9-0.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Loving v. Virginia?

Never heard of it. Never been to law school.

Who's denying gays the right to marry? They have the exact same right as the straights. One woman, one man. Same rights for everyone.

____________________

dpearl:

"Marriage traditionalists generally support civil unions for gays."

SEG: while support for civil unions is very strong overall, I do not believe that a majority of marriage traditionalists feel that way at this time.

"All of this fuss is really about calling that relationship "marriage" instead of something else."

SEG: I believe the debate is more about equality under the law. When I fill out my tax return I check "married filing jointly." Clearly at this point "civil union" is still different than "marriage" under the law and therefore is not a true solution if it is applied only to gay couples.

For me equality under the law AND being respectful of all religious views including (and perhaps especially) those most foreign to my own are both core values. Public policy is always difficult when core values clash. Perhaps logically then the only true solution would be to eliminate the word "marriage" from all laws and replace it with a less emotive word.

____________________

CommonMan87:

FM,

I just want to say thank you. For the past two weeks since I have signed up on pollster, you have made my life so much more joy filled. Your ridiculous verbatim never ceases to amaze.

Comments like "wow melvin wow" and "rubio will win because I said so" continue to delight me everyday. What an insightful post, wow melvin, wow. I am inspired that someone has so much time to sit here all day and post such meaningful comments. I mean, I could never come to the conclusion that Rubio would win with Crist's favorable and approval numbers. It takes someone with deep knowledge to figure that one out.

Your usage of "socialist" and "left wing nut jobs" to refute people's arguments couldn't be more predictable and couldn't be less insightful. It really takes someone with a deep knowledge of history and public policy, like yourself, to throw around the term socialist. Because hey, we all know that everything the Democrats do and say has to socialist. Though, I think Karl Marx might be spinning in his grave and greatly disagree with you that any of Obama's policies are even remotely socialist.

Alas, I commend you. Thanks for being there to show how right we "socialist liberal nut jobs" are.

____________________

lat:

Seg,

I have consistently said that voters deciding on such issues like gay marriage has always been a total farce and this needs to be decided by the courts. Since the beginning of the country the courts have been the final backstop and protector of minority rights and a right is not something to be "voted" on or granted on a selective basis to a selected group of people. Interracial marriages stoked the same kind of vitriol 50 years ago and at least 16 states had laws on the books against them so that would mean that Justice Thomas could not have married his spouse because at the time that was not considered what "traditional" marriage was.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Statypolly,

You said, "Who's denying gays the right to marry? They have the exact same right as the straights. One woman, one man."

Thanks, that was profound.

I'll educate you more Polly. By your logic Loving v. Virginia should have denied interracial marriage because everyone had the same rights. One man could only marry one women. One color could only marry one color. Because one color can only marry one color everyone is treated equally under the law. That's some twisted logic.

Your logic, taken to it's conclusion, would bring back separate but equal. Your logic would say, "We don't need to integrate schools as long as everyone has the same equal facilities." No one is denied a right and everyone is treated equally.

Separate but equal died 56 years ago. We've moved on as a society.

I'll educate you a little more. Look up Sweatt v. Painter. This case helped show, as well as the later Brown v. Board, that separate but equal isn't equal. 1. You lose in the marketplace of ideas because by excluding others you don't get important viewpoints, experiences, and minds. 2. You need to work with people of the opposite color as a lawyer. If you can work with opposite colored peers in real-life you should learn to do it in law school. 3. Separate but equal is not equal because one group has everything and the other group has nothing (or historically one group was oppressed while the other was the oppressor). Thus, by denying blacks from white areas blacks would get self-confidence issues and feelings of worthlessness. They would ask, why can so-and-so do this but I can't? What's different about me? The only way for people to be equal is to eliminate barriers and treat people as equals in one society, not separate societies.

Consequently, how can you possibly say that gays aren't denied a right that straight people have? Marriage is a "fundamental right" (legal term, look it up, it'll help you understand why you're wrong). Most people get married for love. Well, by not allowing gays to marry other gays, you are fundamentally prohibiting them the ultimate expression of love. Additionally, by preventing gay marriage you are preventing citizens of this country one of the most protected and most sacred rights that this country offers.

Can you really say with a straight face that gays aren't denied a fundamental right, when that right is based on love and who you choose to love? Clearly by not allowing gay marriage you have prohibited that choice; thus, that right.

You should really educate yourself on matters before you speak and comment on them. I mean, really Polly, that comment was pure ignorance.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Aaron,

Do you have anything to add to what I said above, or did I cover everything sufficiently?

____________________

StatyPolly:

Nice long post, Gopher, but you lost me right at your basic premise.

First of all, the interracial parallel does not exit, since race is neither a choice, not a disorder. And second, I don't argue for separate but equal. Equating traditional marriage, which served as a cornerstone to procreation and child development throughout thousands years of human evolution to the so-called gay marriage, which is a term used to legitimize such recriational sex acts, as two males shoving what are inconveniently called "reproductive organs" into each others' digestive tracts? Any talk of separate, but equal ends right there.

And your marriage for "love" argument, how far are you willing to take it? I've been deeply in love with five women at a time. At least. No words to describe the depth of my love. Boundless. And I have proof. So you're okay with polygamy? Be consistent now.

Can I marry my sister? Love her. Even if we both get sterilized?

What about my little teacup chihuahua? Her name is Little Hottie. Love her too. How can you not? She is absolutely adorable and a conservative thinker to boot. We have a lot in common. Can I marry her? Not even if it's platonic?

Bi people? Shouldn't they be allowed access to one of each? Minimally! Shouldn't they be entitled to state endorsed intimacy. Only fair.

Oh, almost forgot to post a pic of Little Hottie..

http://jay.kusnetz.net/images/republican-Chihuahua.jpg

____________________

Davey:

Conservatives wanting the government to determine what two consenting adults can do with one another? What a shock.

Any relationship between consenting adults that does not harm the interests of the state should be legal. When polygamy is truly consensual, as it almost never is, it should be legal. Relations between close family members harm the interests of the state, as they cause birth defects. Gay marriage does not in any way harm the state or any of its citizens, as this ruling proves. And as long as the word marriage gives people more access to benefits and an improved social standing, that word should be available for everyone. When people who love each other get married, marriage is only strengthened. It is when people get married out of convenience, out of social pressure, and out of economic considerations that marriages are weakened.

Conservatives, who love the Constitution oh-so-much and never fail to point out that we are a republic, not a democracy, also never fail to be hypocritical. You do not vote on civil rights. We did not vote on slavery, interracial marriage, or abortion, because the Constitution forbids this. The wishes of 97% of the public has no bearing on the rights of the other 3% (or whatever the percentages may be).

Lastly, I'd like to point out that attacking the judge's credibility is a last-ditch grasp for straws. After all, if gay marriages affect everyone, then I guess straight judges also have a conflict of interest, huh? And are women barred from rulings on women's rights? ...This is all not to mention, of course, that this particular judge ruled against the Gay Olympics in a very high-profile lawsuit a while back.

Enemies of equal marriage have no leg to stand on- neither while defending prop 8 nor while claiming that opposite marriages are, for some bizarre reason, more worthy than those between like-genitaled individuals. Their argument died when it hit the courts, and here is the reason: the courts are agnostic. And that, too, comes from your beloved Constitution. Cheers :)

____________________

lat:

StatePoly,

So please explain to me what your "cure" is for the "disorder" that you speak of?

____________________

tjampel:

StatyPolly:
The disagreement is about your first two premises.

As for the first it's no longer classified as a disorder.

As for the second that being gay is a choice, if you're wrong then I guess you agree that marriage should be an option for those who are gay by birth. Perhaps you support a DNA test which shows a "gay" gene?

So, bottom line, if gay is considered a normal behavioral variant based on genetics (which it is by most biologists and psychologists) would you still deny these people the right to marry?

If so why? Is marriage a religious activity that should not be regulated by the state? The Establishment clause prevents that. If it can be regulated by the state (which it can of course) is there a compelling reason for a state to not allow gays to marry? If so, what is it? Not liking them?

The traditional reasons trotted out by those who oppose their right to marry were ALL trotted out in CA and rejected by a Bush appointed judge. That's because they were all debunked by extensive research that's been done over the years.

It really comes down to the fact that people have a notion about what marriage is and marriage between two men or two women doesn't fit the bill. I think seg stated this best. I understand that sentiment. I don't think it should act as a bar to marriage.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Polly,

That was the most educated response I've ever read. Perhaps you should teach genetics, logic, or biology at the graduate level.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Also, you're right Polly, I inferred you were speaking about separate but equal in your first response.

I was wrong.

I should have realized that you thought being gay was a choice, or that choosing who you want to love and marry would include polygamy, beastiality, or incest.

Where do you guys get this kind of twisted logic?

Beastiality, really? I suppose it's perfectly logical to apply a fundamental right that applies to two consenting humans to one human and one animal. That makes sense. That's completely logical.

As I said, please educate yourself before you comment on things. Even if you're against gay marriage, your logic for being against isn't just horribly flawed, it's completely wrong.

____________________

StatyPolly:

TJ,

First of all, your description of how the case in yesterday's decision was fought is not accurate based on what I heard in the news. Prop 8 counsel did not, in fact, trot out traditional reasons for opposition to gay marriage. They only argued that children raised by two gay parents were inferior to general population. And they only presented two weak witnesses who were easily debunked by a litany of world's greatest experts with massive amounts of evidence to the contrary. Even some of the better informed opponents of Prop 8 who followed the trial expressed surprised that the defense's counsel departed from Prop 8's original argument (acceptance of gay marriage as a variant of societal norm is suggestive to children) and decided to focus on the narrow line of gay couples' children specifically. It was immediately clear that the argument to the appellate court will be entirely different. That's the quick summary I got from the news, including two separate interviews of plaintiff's famous attys.

Other part of your post - DNA test? Yes, perhaps if "gay gene" is ever identified, and proven to actually be the cause of majority of gay behavior, I'd probably stop opposing gay marriage. It would take away my main argument against it (and Prop 8 original premise) - gayness, at least in part, is caused by an early childhood suggestion. As far as I know, no gay gene has been identified. And I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Genes are easily tracked through generations. You are not going to see a blue-eyed person deep in the sub-Saharan Africa, unless that person had an outsider in his/her lineage, or is simply has a disorder of albinism. All evidence suggests that gayness is a learned (psychological) behavior.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Davey, you've used the word "conservatives" as a derogatory term several times in your post. But let me remind you that gay marriage failed in every state it's been attempted, including some very blue ones. So, it is not so much a political philosophy issue.

But I am glad to see you're consistent by supporting "truly consensual" polygamy. You think there maybe a group of gay males that might truly consent? For example. What, like the Village People? Maybe a group of 10? A 100?

So we'll leap from redefining marriage as "One Man, One Woman" to a 1000 guys? StatyPolly, five gorgeous women and Little Hottie? Seven women, one guy and three chickens?

Kinda crazy.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"So please explain to me what your "cure" is for the "disorder" that you speak of?"

What are you looking for here? A second amendment solution?

I am not a doctor, and I don't know if there is a cure. But I would classify this disorder as similar to pedophilia, as far as disorders go, and from what I hear on CNN from world foremost authorities on the subject, there often is no cure for that. So..

____________________

CommonMan87:

Polly,

Please provide some scientific evidence that backs up gayness as a disorder, because I would love to hear that reasoning.

Also, even if gayness is classified as a disorder, the two cases presented by Gopherguy has nothing to do with gayness as a whole. It deals with human rights. If people choose to be gay, they should allowed to do so according to the rulings from the cases.

Once again, you fail to find logic in the argument presented to you, but that's ok, your posts entertain me.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"the two cases presented by Gopherguy has nothing to do with gayness as a whole. It deals with human rights. If people choose to be gay, they should allowed to do so"

It doesn't matter to me what the courts ruled on those cases, or what 99.99% of population thinks. I am still entitled to my opinion, right?

I do support allowing gays to be gay, and even support full marital rights civil unions, but I believe that redefining the word "marriage" is harmful to society. That is really an entire separate topic.

As far as logic and disorders go, think once again about what you're talking about.

Shoving male reproductive organs into another male's digestive tract exit hatch is a "VARIANT OF NORMAL"? Not on my planet, it ain't. It is inherently a biological disorder at its very core.

I can question anyone's logic who doesn't see it my way.

____________________

Bukama:

Gopherguy:

As a matter of fact, I am an attorney (graduated from the University of Chicago, if you must know). And you don't understand the debate. You are reacting emotionally, and not looking at this logically.

I have read Loving and Lawrence v. Taylor, and neither disagree with anything I said.

I've also read the Walker opinion. The decision in based on the Rational Basis test for evaluating whether a state law (or constitutional provision in this case) is arbitrary, and therefore unconstitutional. It says nowhere that there is a Constitutional right to marry, because Prop 8 does not deny anyone the right to marry. In every state in the Union today, any two same sex people can find a Church and get married. There are no marriage police who will arrest them.

What Prop 8 does is refuse to issue a state license to same sex couples (or polyamorous couples, for that matter). Once upon a time, people could be arrested for having sex outside of marriage - that was unconstitutional on its face, and especially unconstitutional if only certain people could get married. But those laws are gone.

Lawrence was about the physical act of gay sex being made illegal in some states. This was a direct restriction on freedom, and was unconstitutional because it did not meet the strict scrutiny test applicable to limitations on the freedom of association, in particular.

Loving struck down anti-miscegenation laws. It said refusing to license interracial marriages was unconstitutional because race is one of the protected classifications that government cannot use when discriminating (the others being gender, age, religion, and military status). Laws that discriminate on the basis of a protected class face strict scruting by the courts. Sexual preference is not a protected class.

Under federal law, discrimination on teh basis of sexual orientation is not unconstitutional. However, such discrimination (like any discrimination by the gov't) must not be arbitrary. There must be a rational basis for it, because of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution. Judge Walker decided that Prop 8 did not state a rational basis. The appeal will argue that Judge Walker misinterpreted the meaning of rational basis (which is a really easy test to meet in most cases).

Ifthe 9th Circuit overturns Walker's ruling, the S.Ct may not even hear the case. If the affirm, the S.Ct will consider, and it will probably come down to whether Justice Kennedy thinks Walker properly applied the Rational Basis test. No need to get hyper, we will see in good time what happens.

____________________

Bukama:

Just a quick addendum. The Walker decision does go through a strict scrutiny analysis, on the grounds that sexual orientation is a protected class. But he then says that analysis is not necessary because Prop 8 doesn't even meet a Rational Basis test.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Bukama,

I don't know what's in the case, I haven't read it. I'm simply commenting on marriage itself. Marriage is considered a fundamental right. That's an absolute fact.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Here's proof that it's a fundamental right. I'll stick with Loving v. Virginia, but I'm sure you can find many other cases that will verify this for you.

Loving v. Virginia: The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

You could use that in an argument for gay marriage if you wanted to right now.

____________________

Bukama:

Gopherguy,

You are right. Marriage is a fundamental right (this was stated in Loving). But filing joint tax returns is not part of that right. The right to marry is just an aspect of the right to free association - the right to be with whomever you want (as long as it is mutually consensual), to do what you want with that person, and so on. Prop 8 does not limit that right - it simply says the State while the state has certain benefits available to certain couples (couples who get a marriage license), it will not extend those benefits to same sex couples. Those same sex couples join the other couples who also can't get a marriage license - two close blood relatives, two people who are married to someone else as well, two people if one is underage.

To tell you the truth, I think all of those distinctions lack much of a rational basis. In fact, I don't think there is a rational basis for gov't extending benefits to any couples based on a "marriage" committment that means less and less every year (50% of marriages winding up in divorce anyway). But I don't think it is unconstitutional to make these distinctions, because the state arguably wants to promote procreation, and I guess discourage divorce.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Again, I'm not arguing anything about Prop 8, I don't know how it's worded, I'm just drawing general distinctions and arguments for gay marriage.

Because marriage is a fundamental right, you can make a 14th Amendment argument stating that gays cannot be denied this fundamental right unless the government can overcome strict scrutiny: a compelling governmental interest, narrowly tailored in the least restrictive means.

Presumably, anti-gay marriage would argue that the compelling interest is procreation and strong families for children to grow up in for their benefit. This can be refuted by statistics on single families, out of wedlock children, and adoption of children by a gay couple showing that those adopted by gays live in loving families just like straights blah blah blah...

Gay marriage bans can't pass a strict scrutiny test let alone a rational basis test, like apparently the judge said.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Sexual preference does not need to be a protected class in order for a strict scrutiny test to be applied on gay marriage. Gay marriage is a fundamental right, so strict scrutiny must be applied to deny it to a citizen.

Sexual preference would need to be a protected class to have strict scrutiny protect it if gays were being denied other benefits or rights that didn't amount to being fundamental.

The California Supreme Court used this very argument (strict scrutiny based on a fundamental right) to say a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"marriage is a fundamental right"

Absolutely. And every person is allowed to exercise it. Every male can marry one female, and vice versa. Gay, straight or indifferent. There. Fundamental right and equal protection defended with valor.

Bringing a concept as non-tangible and fleeting as "LOVE" into what in my admittedly amateurish understanding is basically contract law is ludicrous.

Because "LOVE" opens up marriage to polygamy, incest and whatever else you crazy kids can come up with these days. Love - don't shake a stick at it.

And I am yet to hear about what exactly bi-sexuals are entitled to. They've gotta get theirs, no?

____________________

Gopherguy:

Polly, you're just wrong. I already outlined how you're wrong. Here's another example.

Title IX. Everyone women had the right to play sports. So did every man. However, no woman was good enough to make a man's team. That doesn't mean women were denied their right, it just means they weren't good enough to make the team.

That's how your logic would apply.

You just don't understand rights, how to apply rights, and the arguments for due process and equal protection.

If you want to argue against gay marriage, fine go for it.

But don't argue against gay marriage based on the law if you don't even know the law, let alone how to interpret it, or how to apply it.

It's simply absurd to say gays can exercise their fundamental right, they just can't marry other gays.

Like I said before with Loving. Whites could marry. They could marry other whites they just couldn't marry other blacks. Thus, no ones rights were denied. That's your logic.

____________________

StatyPolly:

So if anyone can marry anyone else, why can't I marry my sister, brother, mother, father?

There is not much of a chance of incestuous birth defects if I marry my brother. Do you support the fundamental right of two brothers marrying each other?

Under your definition, you better.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Here's an easy answer birth defects. We apply strict scrutiny. Our compelling interest is a healthy and existing citizenry. Banning incest prevents genetic defects that destroy our citizens. It is narrowly tailored because it only bans marriage to prevent incest, and it's the least restrictive means because the only way to prevent genetic defects from incest is to prevent incest.

You wouldn't be able to have gay incest and straight incest because that would create two different classes of incestual marriage. Thus, you can either have all incestual marriage or no incestual marriage. Because incest is so dangerous to the health and vibrancy of the nation, it must be banned for all people.

____________________

Gopherguy:

So you know Polly, there are very few compelling interests that are recognized. 99.9% of reasons won't amount to a compelling reason, so you can't just arbitrarily create a compelling reason.

Also, health of a nation, along with national security, and a few others are the only compelling reasons.

____________________

seg:

Constitution and marriage:
The Constitution also does not mention marriage. It also does not mention children. That is because the Constitution enumerated the role and limitations of the federal goverment, reserving all other rights to the states and the citizens. Clearly regulating marriage and children was not considered a federal role.

Hence, the feds do not regulate marriage and have no business passing laws about it. The feds do and should simply accept what states accept as marriage for its own purposes (i.e., your tax return).

The feds follow the ancient practice of taxing households, thus requiring them to state what a household is. Since historically we have always been almost exclusively nuclear families and singletons, for tax purpose a married couple with or without children are defined as a household. They also define each individual who is not married as if they were a household.

The feds could easily choose to accept civil unions as households, also. Likewise, they could accept heterosexuals who live together as a household. Both would be problematic since their relationships are rarely as stable as marriages.

I say again, some of the commenters here have an unhealthy glee at the thought of discomfiting those who are simply marriage traditionalists. They can accept, even honor traditionalists who are Indians, Muslims, Jews, or Amish, but have a special intolerance of white traditionalists. I think it is really a racial/religious issue since they pointedly ignore that blacks and Latinos are far more likely to be marriage traditionalist and actual homophobes than are white Christians.

____________________

StatyPolly:

So two brothers can't marry because of risk of birth defects? You think that will hold up in court? Whose court?

What about the polygamists? What about bi-sexuals? More exceptions to the fundamental right? Based on YOUR arbitrary points of view. You think if gay marriage passes, those groups will lose their arguments based on your point of view?

Grow up. Be a man. Lose an argument with a little class and a measure of dignity left intact.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Here's the difference Polly.

There is no compelling governmental interest to deny gay marriage. It doesn't pose national security risks. It doesn't pose health risks. It doesn't endanger lives. Nothing bad happens.

With incest you clearly have deformities, disease, etc. Also, you can't say some incest is ok and some incest isn't, that creates an equal protection problem. Either all can be incest or none. That's the way the law works.

Can't you see the difference?

Here's what this comes down to. You need a the ban to be based on a compelling governmental interest that is narrowly tailored and done in the least restrictive means. Tradition and morality aren't compelling interests.

Polly, what's the compelling interest other than not liking it, being "unnatural," or being religiously against it? If that's all you have, then you have a losing argument. If you can find one, I'm all ears.

This is why courts are ruling in favor of gay marriage. Voters may not be (not yet, but someday if it comes to it), but courts are. Look at what the California Supreme Court said a few years ago.

Instead of telling people to grow up and save their dignity you need to get educated before you open your mouth.

P.S. Nearly all fundamental rights have restrictions. There are restrictions on owning guns, speech, privacy. You just have to have the compelling interest...in order to have restrictions.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"Nearly all fundamental rights have restrictions...You just have to have the compelling interest...in order to have restrictions."

Then, if we must carve out restrictions in fundamental rights, why would they start at two brothers? Opposite gender relatives where one or both are sterile? Sorry, but extending equal protection to marriages where birth defects actually can occur, could not possibly supersede the fundamental right to marry in cases where birth defect cannot occur. You can't have any cake because your sister has diabetes. Sister's equal protection supersedes my fundamental right to eat cake? Anything to support this in case law?

What about polygamists and bi's? Any compelling interest to restrict their fundamental right you can come up with?

____________________

Gopherguy:

Polly, you're great with straw men, I'll give you that.

The difference between incestual disease and diabetes are that incestual disease are much more dangerous, much more likely to occur than through non-incestual marriage, etc.

You seem not to grasp the equal protection argument, so I'm just going to stop explaining that it's a problem.

I don't understand your problem with bi's. They could either marry straight or gay. Thus, no problem. Bisexuals would be right along the same lines as straights or gays.

Polygamists, that's your best counter. (I'm still waiting to hear the compelling reason to restrict gays from marrying from you by the way.)

Polygamy would be illegal right now due to equal protection. Only men could have multiple wives. So first of all, you would need to allow women to have multiple husbands. Also, polygamy or polandry can cause class or caste problems. The well off would easily have multiple wives whereas the poor would have a hard time finding one wife. Lastly, it would cause all sorts of headaches for custody battles, taxes etc. So, an argument to legalize gay marriage to open up polygamy or polandry, but the issues with it would need to be dealt with in order for it to be legal.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Seg, I wouldn't worry about the gleeful ones. They're a small minority. They just like to hang out on message boards a lot more that the general population.

Not to say that the majority of population does not, or perhaps soon will not be supporting gay marriage. But those who do, overwhelmingly do so out of compassion.

Another point. Seemingly irreversible social trends sometimes reverse. Case in point - views on abortion. Hate to bring up a poll on this site (joking), but Gallup has been polling on abortion since 1975, and the trend went from increased acceptance up to early 90's, to a steady decrease since. Back in the early 90's, I would have never for the life of me thought that something like that could have possibly happened. Could and probably will happen with gay marriage. It's just such a nonsensical concept.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx

____________________

Gopherguy:

Also, you need to have standing and show harm in order to bring a potential polygamy suit. I'm not exactly sure how you could show potential harm by not being able to marry multiple women.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Still waiting for that compelling interest that should restrict gay marriage.

____________________

StatyPolly:

i probably did not make myself clear with the diabetes analogy. What I meant was why would two brothers equal protection to two non-related males, be superseded by the equal protection of opposite sex incest?

In other words, wouldn't two brothers claim equal protection to all the other two male couples? You say opposite sex incest would want equal protection to same sex incest. And I say same sex incest should get equal protection to same sex non-incestuous couples. Precisely because there is a complete lack of compelling interest. Two brothers cannot produce a birth defect.

Think about it. You really believe any court would side with your point of view on this?

"I'm still waiting to hear the compelling reason to restrict gays from marrying from you by the way."

I touched on that way earlier in the thread. Since gayness is not genetic, IMO it is a learned behavior. Power of suggestion to a young child. If gay marriage is legal, I guarantee you, you six year old kid will be asked by a helpful teacher at school: "So little Johnny, when you grow up, will you marry a girl or a boy?" The kid will probably say "Hmmm, I'll have to think about that one"

Look, there is plenty of arguments against gay marriage. Some are vividly evident from history, some are common sense. I have posted some of them on this site a few months ago. Lil' Johnny argument alone is plenty, and I am getting short on time now.

The potential harm thing - how is it different for gays? Where is their potential harm in being denied to marry? I thought the argument was - denial of LOVE. Gays love other males. I love multiple women. Gotta have 'em. Be very harmed if I am forbidden to follow my heart.

Bi's obviously should be allowed to marry one of each. Because sometime you feel like a nut.. I pray people still remember that old candy bar commercial. It was huge back in the day. Utube it. Mounds almond joy. I bet it's there.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Yes, because by definition it is still incest. It is what it is. There's no way of getting around it. Gay marriage doesn't equal gay incestual marriage, sorry.

Well, your compelling interest hasn't held up in a court yet. All the evidence shows that children adopted by gay parents aren't any more likely to be gay than the normal population rate.

Bi's, your advocating polygamy, so that's the exact same argument.

In any event, as you are short on time, I'll just sum it up. What we have learned is that you have no actual compelling interest with no real evidence. All you have are fears, dislikes, and ingrained biases. It's ok to let them go.

So that's that. All you have argued are straw men, slippery slope arguments that are easily differentiated or flat out struck down. This is precisely why gay marriage is winning in the courts.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"Still waiting for that compelling interest.."

Don't be too cure, Gopher. You lost the argument long time ago. I've been just obliging you with exchanges for $#its and giggles.

If you're gonna open marriage to gays, you have to open it to everyone. In any combination.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Of course I meant "don't be too cute", not cure..

Getting tired of typing on this tiny laptap..

____________________

Gopherguy:

Um, no I didn't. You never mentioned a compelling interest and you still haven't mentioned one. You could do it easily and at anytime. Your silence on the matter is loud and clear. By the way, a compelling interest means you also have to prove it. If you want my proof like at the court case from yesterday, Boies and Olson have it all there. Look at your side of the argument, none exists, as I've seen from what you've failed to say other than bi's this, beastiality that, polygamy boogeymen.

They can't find one in court. I don't think you have one now, but if you do let us know.

____________________

StatyPolly:

You need to re-read my earlier posts about yesterday's case. They did not argue the same compelling interest in front of this court, as what they argued to actually sell Prop 8. yesterday, they admitted they made a strategic mistake. They argued harm to children of gay couples, while the real compelling interest, and the one they argued in 08, was harm to society at large. Things you call ingrained biases withstood the test of thousands years of evolution. Just because the defendant was found not guilty, does not mean he did not commit the crime. I know they don't teach that at law school.

And of course you never presented compelling interest against polygamy. Administrative hassle won't cut it. And obviously the argument that straight incestuous couple's equal protection supersedes gay incestuous couple's equal protection is utterly ludicrous. It would not hold in even the hoppiest of all kangaroo courts.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Since gayness is not genetic, IMO it is a learned behavior."

WTF. I have never known a gay person who "learned" to be gay. More and more research shows homosexuality to be neurological.

Tell me when you "learned" to think the cheerleader's smooth, shapely legs were sexier than the football player's hairy ones.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"Tell me when you "learned" to think the cheerleader's smooth, shapely legs were sexier than the football player's hairy ones."

Didn't have to learn it. Born that way, I suppose. I may have to try to think way back though sometime. It is the unnatural that has to be "learned". The natural - comes factory standard.

"More and more research shows homosexuality to be neurological."

Not really sure what "neurological" really means here. Brain? Then it is learned. Even if "learned" was not the best term for me to use. As I posted a couple of times earlier - it's something that can be suggested or otherwise influenced in early childhood.

As far as research goes - I am huge on science, but anything this highly politicized has to be taken with a mountain of salt. As the climate change science taught us. Or at least, some of us.

____________________

Thaddeus:

Sorry I missed such a rich discussion where people actually have discussed in a civil manner...

Staty- I'm wondering what types of experiences teach this "gay" stuff. I grew up in a lesbian household and community and turned out straight, even though I never had/knew many straight role models. Most of the kids in the community ended up straight as well. While I know people from college, heck even some who went to Oral Roberts U who came from very religious families who were gay. So what do they learn it from? Squirrels?

Seg- Most people I know would be fine having civil unions, just make them across the board. If all government sanctioned unions are "civil unions", then anyone who wants find you're church and get married. Judges do civil unions and religious folks do marriage. It preserves the word "Marriage" for the traditionalists. For most of us, it's not about the word. It's about my mom being able to see her partner in the hospital, just like I can see my wife. Whatever word the government chooses to call the rights a couple has is just fine.

Just don't blame me if some pastor decides he wants to marry a homosexual couple. That's between his God and him. Not something I'm fighting for.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR