Ssshh! Roger still thinks he’s a disaffected Democrat. The mind control rays haven’t gotten him completely yet.

(If only he’d take of the goddamn hat….)

Maybe not many, but vocal. I count John Derbyshire as a friend, but it’s none the less clear that his reaction of homosexuals is driven by a deep and unreasoned “ooh, those queer guys are icky” distaste. Stan Kurtz has much the same reaction going on.

It looks very famiiar to me: it looks an awful lot like the reactions my Georgia grandfather, and my father, had to black people.

I loved and admired both of them, but on this topic they were just nuts. The Kobe Bryant case (to cross threads) would have had my grandfather railing about how black men want to have sex with white women, except he wouldn’t have said “black men” or “have sex with”.

I’m not claiming, by any means, that anyone who doesn’t like gay marriage or equal rights efforts is phobic — just that some of these people seem to be motivated by the same queasy discomfort I feel around spiders.

That word is just plain wrong. I doubt if there are many homophobes in either party. But there are plenty of Republicans who object to some of the latest gay legal actions – such as push gary marriage.

Furthermore, the purpose of the Amendment was to stop crusading courts. If a court finds gay marriage in the entrails of what’s left of the constitution, it will result in many people. It will have short circuited the democratic process just like Roe v. Wade did.

A society where one side wants to achieve success through court fiats is an unhealthy one.

And I think you have made a blanket statement about the Republican party being homophobic. Sure, there are a pretty good amount of Republicans that are homophobic, but I would venture to say that there are probably a pretty good amount of Democrats that are homophobic as well.

Some people in the Republican party have strong judeo christian beliefs, and the gay marriage debate is in direct conflict with their beliefs; but that certainly doesn’t mean they are homophobic or hate gay people. Personally, I think it should be decided by the states – and I bet most Republicans would feel the same.

It frightens me when the government tries to ammend the constitution. It needs to be left alone, and the judges need to do their job in interpreting the law and not writing law (we all remember the election of 2000, don’t we???)

Quite frankly, the whole gay marriage ammendment thing is a non issue to me and probably always will be, especially when we are in such serious times and our attentions need to be focused on fighting terrorism.

I am not a gay man and I know that you are sometimes troubled by the Republican platform that “appears” to restrict gay rights. Before I run off at the mouth, may I say that I am glad, scratch that, proud that you are a Republican? Thank you for supporting the conservative agenda.

Please be aware that we must win 51% of the electoral vote. If I believe that Martians speak to me every night, and 51% of the electorate then concludes that I am unfit to represent them, I face the distastful choice of letting someone else represent me and my fellow martians, or, I can perhaps pick a team that will win, and give me and my fellow martians most of our immportant objectives and hopefully, a chance to win over the biased ones at a later date. I recognize that getting 51% to agree on anything (especially sex) is impossible.

Please hang in there Roger, this is a conflict that you will not lose.

I’m guessing that you didn’t catch that I was paraphrasing the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

Radical? Yeah.

If that is the case, then I would think that you would support the idea of limiting the power of the courts to make laws without any checks or balances. Strangely, you do not do so. You have an very odd notion of limited government.

Flenser, you’re arguing with someone else again. I don’t recall at any time saying anything about the power of the courts, and in fact just checked with “Search…” and find no time at which I spoke at all about the power of the courts.

I’ve pointed out on several occasions now that youu were making arguments to me about things I hadn’t said. I’d say something about “putting words in my mouth” except it’s clear its not so much that as the voices in your head that you’re responding to.

I will, however, point out that I said specifically that I’d prefer the government not to have the power to get into these things at all. I presume, therefore, that it’s the voices in your head again; echoes of other arguments you’ve had with other people, who you’re somehow confounding with me.

Like so many “social liberals”, you see the world as composed of individuals, who bear with them innumerable “rights”, and the state, which functions as the adjudicator amoung all the individuals whenever their “rights” conflict with each other.

Yup. Me. Thomas Jefferson. James Madison. George Mason. John Locke. John Marshall.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights. (See Amendment IX.)

Buncha goddamn radicals.

But then, I was pointing out how radical the American Experiment really was.

I’m afraid that, as John suggests, you are being deliberately obtuse.

You contine to propose some pretty radical ideas, which you see as “axiomatic”, without providing anything in the way of support for them.

e.g.

“I believe that men and women are properly equal — which imples indistinhguishable — before the law. I therefore don’t think that it makes sense that we have certain contracts that can only contain one of each, as that imples a legal distinction. And, before you ask, yes that means I think women ought to be available for combat in the military.”

You are entitled to believe whatever you wish, but the law has and still does make a distinction between men and women. The ERA attempted to have the strict equality of the two sexes written into the constituition, but it failed. Among the arguments used against it; that it could be used to advance the idea of homosexual marriage.

You continue to claim that you desire a “small and ineffectual government”. If that is the case, then I would think that you would support the idea of limiting the power of the courts to make laws without any checks or balances. Strangely, you do not do so. You have an very odd notion of limited government.

Like so many “social liberals”, you see the world as composed of individuals, who bear with them innumerable “rights”, and the state, which functions as the adjudicator amoung all the individuals whenever their “rights” conflict with each other. Whatever else can be said for the state in this scheme, it does not play a small and ineffectual role.

I thnk it’s pretty clear WHAT you believe. There is not much to be gained by your repeating your stance. I’m more interested in WHY you believe it. But I can’t seem to get much of an explanation from you, other than a fairly bastardized version of libertarianism which requires other people to behave as you wish them to.

Anyway, thanks for your time.

“..wishes to amend the Constitution to ban marriage by people of the same orientation as the Veep’s daughter.”

Thats not actually the case. The “marriage” you speak of is not legal, so it makes no sense to speak of banning it.

The proposal is to seek to stop the courts from whipping up a fresh “right”.

When I lived in the Bay Area, the locals took great pride in noting that their city provided free sex-change operations to municipal employees.

So now I get to choose between the San Francisco party and the party whose VP, the father of a lesbian, wishes to amend the Constitution to ban marriage by people of the same orientation as the Veep’s daughter. Some choice.