There are several opinion pieces worth reading regarding Judge Roberts from the past few. The first is this piece by Ed Whelan in NRO, which contains this bit about Roberts and abortion:
The third position is that the Constitution generally does not speak to the question of abortion. Under this substantively neutral position, American citizens would have the constitutional power to determine through their state representatives what the abortion policy in their own states would be. This neutral position — which three members of the current Court, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, embrace — also happens to be the proper reading of the Constitution (as I explain more fully here).
Insofar as sensible political labels might be applied to these three positions, it would seem plain that the first (pro-abortion) position would be labeled liberal (with the Roe version of that position being radical), the second (pro-life) would be labeled conservative, and the third (neutral) would be labeled moderate.
Of course, sense does not prevail in the frenzied abortion culture in which we live. Thus, the media routinely label the radical pro-abortion position as “moderate” and the substantively neutral position as “extremist right-wing.” And, of course, the media consistently understate the radical nature of the Roe regime (often pretending, for example, that Roe merely protects abortion in the first three months of pregnancy), confuse the public into thinking that reversing Roe would render abortion illegal, and then cite the public’s resulting support for the imagined Roe as supposed evidence of Roe’s moderation…
John Roberts is, by all accounts, a man of deep intellect and high character who understands the proper role of the judiciary in our constitutional republic. There is therefore good reason to hope that he will be a genuine moderate who will not read his own policy views on abortion (whatever they are) into the Constitution but who will respect the constitutional authority of the people to govern their own states and communities on this and other issues of social policy.
Read the whole thing. Next up is this piece by Jacob Sullum in Reason, titled As Bad As We Want Him To Be?:
Critics of negative campaigning say attack ads reflect poorly on the candidates they’re intended to benefit. That’s not necessarily true, but I do find that attack ads often reflect well on the candidates they’re intended to hurt.
When an announcer gravely warns me that someone running for public office opposes gun control and wants to cut spending, I think, “Hmm. He sounds pretty good.” So it is with Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, whose detractors seem intent on accentuating his positive points.
The main complaint about Roberts is that he might vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled,” said a 1990 brief that he co-authored as a deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration. “The Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to abortion and that the government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”
Assuming Roberts agrees with the argument he made as the government’s lawyer, I see no cause for alarm. Given how weak the reasoning underlying Roe is—so weak that many abortion rights supporters are embarrassed by the ruling, which they consider a legal and political mistake—it would be alarming if Roberts didn’t think the case was wrongly decided.
Again, read the whole thing. The third piece is law professor William LaPiana, who has this to offer:
Some 30 years ago I was a pre-law adviser at Leverett House in Harvard College when John Roberts was an undergraduate. I hasten to add that I do not remember ever giving him any advice about going to law school. The occasion of his nomination to the Supreme Court is my excuse not for personal reminiscence but rather for some thoughts about the American legal profession at the beginning of the 21st century and about the possible future of the Supreme Court.
John Roberts is a child of the baby boom, both in age and in biography. He has come within reach of filling one of the most important roles in American life by combining a willingness to work, a good deal of ability, no doubt some good fortune and what surely were outstanding scores on standardized tests.
To society at large, Roberts is an example of what perhaps most Americans identify as our meritocratic society. His is not a story of “rags to riches,” of course, but one of outstanding performance at an elite educational institution and a rise from the middle class to the top of one of the two professions — law and medicine — that dominate the ambitions of our generation.
Cass Sunstein, writing in The New Republic, offers a discussion of various judicial philosophies, and writes:
President Bush has added both minimalists and fundamentalists to the lower courts; he has not shown a clear preference in favor of one or the other. Roberts’s record, taken as a whole, gives some modest indications that he tends toward the minimalist camp.
Here’s a good reason to think he isn’t a fundamentalist: He hasn’t publicly committed himself to it. Most fundamentalists are not in the closet. They have strong convictions about how to interpret the Constitution. They believe that the Court has gone badly off the rails, and they are not shy about announcing that fact. Bush might well have chosen another candidate, such as Judge J. Michael Luttig or Judge Janice Rogers Brown, whose fundamentalist credentials are much clearer. Minimalists don’t need, or even like, to announce themselves as such. Judge Roberts’s general silence–his unwillingness to attack existing constitutional law in any kind of public way–suggests a minimalist temperament.
There is another point. Judge Roberts’s opinions thus far are careful, lawyerly, and narrow. They avoid broad pronouncements. They do not try to reorient the law. When he disagrees with his colleagues, he does so with evident respect and with a frank recognition that reasonable people can disagree. In a separate opinion concluding that American soldiers cannot sue Iraq after being held as prisoners in the Gulf war, Roberts’s opinion on some technical issues announces his “agree[ment] with the majority that this question … is close.” His opinions show none of the swagger that can be found in some of the writings of Scalia and Thomas.
Also in the New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen adds the following cautious yet positive evaluation of Roberts, which includes this speculation about Judge Roberts:
Given Roberts’s dazzling talents–his intelligence, judgment, devotion to legal craft, and palpable belief in the power of reasoned argument to constrain judges in meaningful ways–it seems quite possible that his vision of the force of precedent might evolve and grow during decades on the Court. I don’t mean “evolve” in the sense that liberals hope and conservatives fear–that Roberts will become less conservative and more liberal. I mean, instead, that the application of his determined intelligence to the hardest and most elusive questions of constitutional law will lead Roberts to develop a vision of constitutional stability that is uniquely his own. What precisely his vision will be is probably not evident at the moment, even to Roberts himself. But, by focusing on Roberts’s judicial philosophy, rather than his views about the controversies of the moment, the Senate can do much to illuminate this crucial question in the confirmation hearings ahead.
The final piece is from Michael C. Dorf, the Michael I. Sovern Professor of Law at Columbia University, who concludes:
I doubt that President Bush directly sought from Roberts a commitment on particular issues, and as I share the general view of Roberts as a man of integrity, I am certain that if he were asked, he wouldn’t have provided such assurances. So how can movement conservatives be confident that Roberts will vote as one of them?
The short answer is that they cannot be wholly confident, but the longer answer is that they can take considerable comfort from the company Roberts keeps. He clerked for then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist when Rehnquist was clearly the Court’s most conservative member. He spent most of his career in the federal government, but only during Republican administrations. Thus, while Roberts is entitled to say that briefs he wrote, including those calling for the overruling of Roe, were in the service of a policy set by his political bosses, skeptics are equally entitled to ask why Roberts chose to work for these and not for other bosses.
wilson
Good quotes. About abortion, has anyone looked at what the laws were in 1787? If there were no parental notification laws or the like, why are the Whelan’s of the world so convinced they “know” what the framers thought about reproductive privacy rights? I suspect a case can be made that abortion was pretty much unregulated back then, a matter between a woman and her MD. If someone had said let’s have this sort of matter routinely addressed by the state and federal lawmakers, would Adams, Madison, Jeffeson, Hamilton et al have jumped up and said “yea, great idea”?
Blackmun, a Nixon appointee, wrote a practical medical opinion in Roe, but did not attempt to break any new ground or “legislate from the bench”. He approached the issue as a Mayo Clinic general counsel. A Roberts could produce a better connection between conclusions and the constitution and bill of rights, perhaps, but I am not sure he could be more true to the spirit and original intent of the framers.
Retief
Yeah that’s the ticket. Roe should be overturned is the Moderate position. Yeah Yeah. Because the two thirds of people who regularly oppose overturning Roe are too dumb to know what that really means. Yeah, that’s it. Overturning Roe is the Neutral position. So don’t worry all of you, wanting to overturn Roe is what makes Roberts so absolutly moderate.
At least some of Roberts supporters have gotten past the idea that the Conservative agenda is unpopular so they should try to sneak Roberts onto the supreme court without ever having to say that he beleives in that agenda. Claiming the Conservative agenda is really moderate is pretty pathetic but it is a vast improvement over the ridiculous claim that we have no right to know whether Roberts believes in that unpopular agenda or not, and we should just trust that Bush knows best.
As a side note, beleiveing that, if people just understood that the Right-wing wants to reverse Roe because of their completely neutral dedication to letting states decide for themselves just how much the want to restrict abortion, they’d really support that position demonstrates a pretty serious disconect from reality.
John Cole
He was talking in terms of the constitution, not in terms of politics. What is a neutral/moderate position politically often requires application what some would call ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ approaches to interpreting the Constitution.
Thus, his conclusion is that Roberts is not conservative in that he will be a fire-breathing ideologue who will move to strike down Roe at the first opportunity, or that he is a liberal who will vote to uphold it regardless, but that he is more likely in the third camp, which presumably will chip around the edges of established law…
You don’t have to agree with the piece, but you probably shouldn’t distort it.
Sojourner
Polls still show that more than half of Americans are comfortable with Roe v Wade. If you’re claiming that Roe supports unlimited abortion throughout the pregnancy, you are incorrect.
Jake S.
One thing that most people forget about overturning Supreme Court decisions, regardless of what part of the political fence they happen to sit on, is that not all cases on abortion challenge Roe directly. In fact, not even Rhenquist’s dissent in Casey could have been used, should it have been the majority, to completely overturn Roe. (Using Casey as one of the most important post-Roe cases is, I believe, not quite beyond the pale.)
Regardless, any law that restricts abortion can and will be held constitutional if it contains two rock-solid provisions allowing for abortions to take place. First, the life of the mother shall not be endangered. Second, the health of the mother, in the long-term, shall not be endangered. That’s all you need to ensure that your law will make it through the courts unscathed. Yet that’s unacceptable to the rabid fanatics out there, isn’t it…
Oh, and Casey? The case that decided the two-pronged test for abortion law? That one was decided by a 6-3 margin. Which means that Roberts would need to be damn persuasive in chambers if they want to reverse it. Of course, that chance is coming up with Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood coming up on the docket then, isn’t it…
Jeff
Jacob Sullum makes interesting points and it’s something people need to look at.
Last night my fiance and I were out to dinner with her best friend and her best friend’s husband.
My fiance’s best friend is as liberal and pro-choice as they come and graduated near the top of her class from University of Penn Law School.
While she completely supports what Roe vs Wade accomplished, she also said that she could tear it apart from a legal standpoint and that, like Sullum and Roberts say, it was poorly argued.
Sojourner
The reality is that the states can make it virtually impossible for a woman without significant means to get an abortion if they so choose.
So it will be the poor women who die from illegal abortions while the Bush twins will be safe.
How sad it is when the liberals get accused of being the elites.
KC
He’s going to get confirmed. Yeah, he may get grilled in the Senate, but lets face it, barring some unforseeable screwup by Roberts during the hearing or the uncovering of some evil deed from his past, he’s going to get in. From what I’ve been reading, much of the Left realizes this (read dkos’s latest post on the matter). So, to me, asking him a few tough questions isn’t really going to matter. I hope Dems and Republicans stay reasonable about the matter.
Don Surber
Nice to read something that is not about how his 4-year-old behaved or, as WaPo had today, how they were dressed for Easter.
Pardon my venting but when you have children that age dressing for an occasion like that you put on their Sunday best. It being July that is likely the Easter outfit. WaPo’s fashion critic (whom I like) is child challenged
Doug
Who are these “pro-abortion” advocates of whom Ed Whelan speaks? Is the eugenics community really that powerful these days? Would Whelan classify someone who wants abortion to be legal, safe, and rare as “pro-abortion”?
I think his choice of labels reveals him to be either ignorant or an asshole.
Mike
“If you’re claiming that Roe supports unlimited abortion throughout the pregnancy, you are incorrect.”
That’s part NARAL probably wants to fix so that you can have an abortion right up until your water breaks and you never have to tell your parents, no matter your age.
These people are insane.
Retief
I’m not saying that. I’m mocking Ed Whelan’s claim that public support for Roe is based on the media consistently understating the radical nature of the Roe regime (often pretending, for example, that Roe merely protects abortion in the first three months of pregnancy), and confusing the public, which is a load of bollocks. This is also the thrust of my last paragraph.
HH
Blog post of the year from the good Professor Duncan:
“Made Man
Told you. Apparently an Iran-Contra player, too.
Apparently a different John Roberts. Sometimes google is a day behind…”
Retief
John, I don’t believe I’m distorting here. Whelan’s third postion, which ascribes to Roberts is that
For that to happen, Roe has to be struck down. Maybe not all at once, maybe piecemeal, but if legislatures deciding their own abortion restrictions aren’t incompatible with Roe, why isn’t it happening? Whelan follows that with a paragraph that begins
That’s where he tells us that Roberts’ supposed position, overturning Roe, is really moderate.
His three positions are: 1. The Constitution prohibits, to one degree or another, laws that protect the life of an unborn human being. (per Whelan Pro-abortion or Liberal/Radical, I’ll call it Roe.) 2. The Constitution prohibits, to one degree or another, abortion, because the unborn count as persons. (he calls this the Pro-Life or Conservative postion. I’ll call it the crazy position.) 3. The Constitution says nothing about abortion, so Roe is wrong and should be struck down, leaving the state legislatures to decide. (Whalen calls this Neutral or Moderate. I’m happy to call it Conservative)
Where’s the distortion?
Steve
Like I’ve been saying all along, invading Iraq, Iran, and Syria to democratize the Middle East is the Moderate position. Invading China, North Korea, and every other non-democracy in the world is the Conservative position. Sitting at home sucking on your thumb in hopes of appeasing the terrorists is the Liberal position.
Heck, anything can be “moderate” if you define the right extremes.
Stormy70
Right. Hyperbole much?
Sojourner
Are you really that stupid? Do you think a poor woman in Mississipi has the resources to travel to another state and spend a couple nights in order to have an abortion?
Sojourner
Stormy:
Have you ever bothered to research what the days before Roe were like? Don’t you understand that women regularly died from botched illegal abortions? Are you really that comfortable in your own life that you don’t give a shit about those who are less well off?
Maybe it’s an age difference but I do know a couple of women who had illegal abortions. But they were from affluent families. Those who were not took their chances.
No hyperbole, just ignorance on your part.
Stormy70
Give me a break. A poor woman in Miss. can go get free birth control at the local Planned Parenthood. One can drive two hours and be in another state, I know I lived in Georgia and drove across Miss. in 2 hours. I grew up in Amarillo, and the poor people could drive 2 hours to get to Lubbock to get their abortions.
Wow. I guess everyone is stupid in your world if they disagree with you. So you were around in the sixties? Are you a hippy, because hippies are stupid. ;-)
Sojourner
And birth control NEVER fails.
And what if she doesn’t own a car. And what if the neighboring states don’t allow abortions. Which in the deep south is quite likely.
But I forget – you’re the one who doesn’t have a problem with the rape of women and children detained in Iraq so why would I expect you to care about the plight of poor women in this country?
Hippies are stupid while people like you who want to be rich are smart, right?
Stormy70
You mention this quite often, but I’ve yet to see the proof, though I have asked for it. Turn it on its head: Did you care that Saddam and his sick son kept a rapist on hand to torture Iraqis? Are you saying our troops are raping women and children in Iraq? Do you love the UN rapists of women and children in the Congo, or do you defend the UN no matter the corruption of its failed leadership? Until then, step off.
Sojourner
I gave you the reference – New Yorker magazine – Sy Hersh. Look it up. Don’t expect me to do the work for you.
Rape is indefensible no matter who does it. But it’s naive to assume that the US can prevent it from happening throughout the world. But when it happens on the US’s watch, at prisons under US command – it’s absolutely inexcusable.
I do not buy your argument that just because others tolerate it, it’s okay if we do as long as it’s not as much. We’re supposed to be the moral leaders. Bush promised to close the rape rooms and protect the Iraqis from torture. He should have kept his promise.
ppGaz
You don’t get it, Soj.
The “Saddam – bad!!” boogeyman is kept holstered and at the ready to deflect any anti-Emperor sentiments that might come from any quarter.
Why, did you know that Saddam all the time?
Who knew? Who knew that a guy who basically murdered his way into power (as opposed to respectable despots, who got to power by entering the Publisher’s Clearinghouse Sweepstakes) by killing his enemies, would later do even more nasty things once there was nothing to restrain his use of that power?
Holy bat, crapman! Do you suppose we should go back and look at every despot we’ve sucked up to in the last fifty years (including, you know, Saddam himself) and rethink our policy toward these reprobates????
Saddam Hussein could have personally killed Jesus, it wouldn’t be enough to justify the deflection horseshit that these Bush apologists cough up here at every frigging opportunity.
Ends DO NOT justify means. We’re not going to sit here and let these potatoheads turn this country into an EJM operation. Sorry, not acceptable.
Sojourner
ppGaz:
You answered the question that has been bothering me for some time: Is there anything the Bush administration does (or could do) that is so outrageous it is unacceptable even if it means political gain?
I have yet to see it nor do I see the slightest indication of embarassment when these folks defend activities that go against what they claim to be their most deeply held values.
I find it very sad given that we once prided ourselves on being a moral beacon. Now all we can claim is that we’re the biggest bullies on the block.
Stormy70
We still are, despite your histrionics. We are fighting with kid gloves, we could have lit that part of the world on fire.
Sy Hersh is not a credible journalist. Are you saying that 140,000 troops in Iraq are raping women and children? Right, and the press just happens to be covering it up. Once again, cue the black helicopters. LOL.
Sojourner
Check the polls that have been done internationally. You may think so but a whole lot of people don’t. Sorry but how we are perceived in the world is not determined by how we view ourselves.
Sy Hersh broke the Abu Ghraib story which was thoroughly confirmed. His record is pretty darn good. But then for Bush heads like you, you wouldn’t believe anything negative about this administration even if you witessed it yourself.
Where did I make that claim? Oh, I get it. Abu Ghraib didn’t happen because 140,000 troops in Iraq didn’t torture detainees. I hope you’re eye ball deep in scotch because if you make these kinds of arguments when you’re sober… well, I guess it explains your positions on a lot of issues.
Tim
Hi
Hey You
Back to Roe for a minute. Judge Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, I remember the hearings well.
He had previously called Roe “a serious and wholly unjustifiable usurpation of state legislative authority”.
In other words, there is zero reference to abortion in the Constitution, yet the judges chose to impose their personal opinions onto the entire nation. Now as far as the hearings, on the attack against Bork were Biden,Kennedy,Simon and Metzenbaum. No nominee would make it past them if he did not toe the line as to their personal views on abortion. In short, they dictated that only judges who would force their abortion position on the nation could make it onto the court. This is back when the Democrats held a majority in both houses and could get away with such nonsense. Now they are a minority in both houses,wonder why?
Further point about abortion….Abortions are not essential
to life,in fact they destroy life. The time to decide if you want to be pregnant is before you have sex. I know, what if it is rape,incest etc? Could reasonable people agree on reasonable policies? Or must we be under the policies of NARAL, which is no restrictions of any type on abortions? They would protect butchers who perform abortions in the 8th month. Who are the extremists?
Sojourner
Rest easy. The ninth amendment takes care of the problem.
Hey You
Sojourner: Please elaborate on your reference to the ninth amendment.
Mike
“Are you really that stupid? Do you think a poor woman in Mississipi has the resources to travel to another state and spend a couple nights in order to have an abortion?”
What are you worried about?
If the majority of Americans agree with you that all abortions shouldn’t be overturned, (which they do in fact, including me), but rather a more moderate positon should be taken, then don’t you feel strongly enough about your own arguments that people will agree with them legislatively? Or are you just another liberal who wants to hide behind the tyranny of the courts. (What am I SAYING!? ALL Liberals want to hide behind the tyranny of the courts, it’s not as if they can win in the court of public opinion.)
And here’s another nail in the coffin of Leftwingers, Howard Dean is now coming out and saying Democrats should reach out to Pro-Lifers. I love it. Bad time to be a moonbat these days.
John S.
I am just asshocked over this nonsensical statement as you pretend to be.
Take your own advice:
Indeed.
Sojourner
Civil rights are based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not a popular vote.
Sojourner
The ninth amendment says that Americans’ rights are not restricted to those enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Mike
“Civil rights are based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not a popular vote.”
That’s only if you believe that having an Abortion is a Civil Right. Many on all sides of the political spectrum dispute that claim and feel that quite frankly Roe was based on a badly flawed interpretation of the Constitution. There are many Democrats these days (including Howard Dean) that feel that Democrat’s defense of Roe has done nothing but hurt then and others feel it would be best just to let it go and fight it out in State Legislatures. I happen to agree with this view, but I doubt that Democrats will ever be able to corral the Leftys into agreeing with it. Which is just one more reason the Democrats need to tell the extreme left to take a hike.
Sojourner
The Democratic party will shatter if they decide to stop fighting for civil rights. By doing so, they become nothing more than Republican light.
I don’t see how control over one’s own body is anything less than the ultimate civil right.
Hey You
Sojourner: I know what the ninth amendment says, I just wanted your take on it. What I am against is Supreme Court judges deciding what the other rights are. Liberal judges find the “rights” to abortion ,gay marriage etc, while banning school prayer,the Pledge of Allegience etc. If I claim a Constitutional right to walk down the street naked, crap on the sidewalk and have sex in public, a Liberal judge might find those “rights” in the Constitution. The fact is, those rights are not there, just like abortion,gay marriage etc. The answer is, Supreme Court judges should butt out and let the States decide their own matters. The more power in the peoples hands and the less power in the judges hands the better.
Sojourner
The States should not decide civil rights. Those are Constitutional issues. Once again, control over one’s own body is a civil right.
The first amendment explicitly mandates against state religion, which is why school prayer and pledging allegiance to God in the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance are a problem. Gay marriage is a civil right just as straight marriage is. Gay people should have the same rights as straight people.
Leaving it to the states makes as much sense as allowing individual states to decide if an African American is a full person or only 3/5 of a person.
Hey You
OK, since control over one’s body is a civil right, then that means I have the right to walk down the street naked, crap on the sidewalk and have sex in public. Now if gays have the civil right to marriage, then the Mormons have the right to have multiple wives, uncles can marry their nieces or nephews, cousins can marry each other, and even brothers and sisters have the same civil right to marry. Also, 40 year old men can marry 10 year olds, male or female. Why not? Who are we to prejudge? Making any of those illegal would be taking away their civil rights.
Sojourner
These are really stupid examples. The thing you’re ignoring is pregnancy is very invasive and carries a real risk of permanent health problems and death. It also has tremendous repercussions for one’s ability to hold a job and one’s relations within one’s family and culture. Not shitting in the street doesn’t compare.
Heteros have the right to marry the (one) partner of their choice who is of legal age as long as there is not a too-close blood relation. Gays should have the same right. It’s really not that complicated.
Hey You
You said control over one’s body is a civil right. You didn’t put any limitations on that comment. The examples I gave fall under that umbrella. I can give examples all day long. There are laws against those activities .Are you saying you would put restrictions on some bodily activities but not others? What you’re saying is , control over ones body is a civil right , but only when you say so. You’re the one who decides what civil rights are important, stupid or whatever, based on your personal views.
Funny thing about gay marriage, in the States it only occurs when judges ram it down people’s throats. Or like in Calif, the City Of San Francisco performing illegal weddings. The Atty General put a stop to that right away. That is because a few years back the people passed a proposition limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Now if Liberal Calif doesn’t want gay marriage, then that tells you something right there. Once you have judges deciding such issues, you guarantee biased decisions. If a judge in Utah decided that men can have multiple wives, contrary to State law ,would you agree with that or do judges make mistakes? You want to give gays the civil right to marry, but deny that same right to all the others. Same thing, you’re the one who gets to decide who has civil rights and who doesn’t. Either let people marry whoever they want, regardless of numbers, sex, age, blood relationship or anything else OR keep the laws as they are. Let’s be fair when we’re handing out imaginary rights.
Sojourner
No, I’m saying that control over one’s body when it comes to one’s physical health and survival. Crapping in the street or having sex in public don’t meet those requirements.
Would you have a problem with forced “donation” of blood, kidney, bone marrow, part of your liver, etc.? I suspect you would. Is there anything in the Constitution that addresses the issue of whether you have to “donate” these to support the survival of another? It doesn’t come up so I guess that means we can pass a law and make you give up that second, redundant kidney you have.
Are you saying that hetero marriage is not a Constitutional right? So a state can decide arbitrarily to not allow it or to only allow some folks to participate such as those who are able and willing to have children? Old and infertile folks need not apply? I doubt you would take that position.
Once again, civil rights should not be voted on. I don’t see why the rights of my gay neighbors require the permission of people who have never met them, anymore than my right to marry should be similarly subject to the votes of others.
Discrimination should not be subject to the whims of the people. That’s what’s supposed to make this country different from others that are not as concerned with the rights of the minority.
Absolutely not true. I want gays to have the same right to marry the person they love as a hetero. Period. End of story. Don’t bother me with the polygamy argument. Heteros aren’t allowed to so I have no problem with no gay polygamy. Child brides? No heteros can so I have no problem if gays can’t.
Gay people should be allowed to marry the person they feel completes them in the same way that heteros can. Anything less than that is discrimination and bigotry.
Hey You
OK, so now we’ve limited one’s right to control their own body to issues concerning their physical health and survival. 90%+ of abortions do not fall into either category and are therefore not a right, according to those criteria. Abortionists’ instruments,drugs and poisons are highly invasive,and carry a real risk of permanent health problems and death. As far as forced organ donations or banning hetero marriage, whichever politician brought up those ideas would be laughed out of office. Again, the people decide who represents them and who should write the laws, not the judges. On gay marriage, I thought we were trying to do away with “discrimination and bigotry”, yet you want to pick and choose who can marry according to your personal feelings. On the one hand you use those terms to describe those you disagree with, then you turn around and do the exact same thing to a different minority. Polygamists are real people, as real as gays or anyone else. You can’t just say ‘don’t bother me with the polygamy arguement’.
The polygamist can label your ideas “discrimination and bigotry” just like you apply it towards the majority of citizens who do not want gay marriage. Polygamy is illegal because the people want it that way, just like gay marriage.
My point to all this is, your personal views determine which rights you see in the Constitution. Anybody can read it and “find” whatever rights they want, and deny rights they don’t want.
Sojourner
The reality is there’s absolutely no way to anticipate the physical consequences of a pregnancy. A friend of mine had a perfectly normal pregnancy until she went into labor and almost bled out. They had to remove her uterus. For reasons like this, tt should be left up to the woman to determine if she wishes to accept that risk for herself. It amazes me that people feel they have the right to make that decision since they will bear absolutely no consequences of the decision they make for her. And stats show that abortion is much safer than pregnancy. But again, it’s the woman’s decision to choose whether she prefers the risks associated with abortion or pregnancy.
I’m not taking a position on the polygamy issue other than to challenge your assumption that gay marriage is analogous to polygamy in terms of similarity to hetero marriage. It’s not.
Cross-racial marriage used to be illegal because the people wanted it that way. Another one of those pesky civil rights issues you want to leave to the public to determine.
Sojourner
Since I know you will continue to be obtuse about it, the arguments are as follows:
Women must have the right to control their own bodies at least up to the point of fetal viability. NO ONE else should have the right to interfere with that. Period. End of story.
Your polygamy argument fails for the following reason. A polygamist wanna-be is legally allowed to marry one person he/she wants to have as a lifelong partner who meets the qualifications of age and genetic relationship. Refusing to allow gay marriage means that a gay person is not allowed to marry one person who he/she wants to have as a lifelong partner who meets the qualifications of age and genetic relationship.
End of story. I’m sure you’ll come up with some BS argument for both but I’ve heard them all so save your breath.
Hey You
Sojourner: Why do you keep amending your previous statements and now state “End of story” ? Have you lost control of the situation ? The story doesn’t end just because you say so. Just like your take on the Constitution is correct just because you say so. First it was “control over one’s body is a civil right”, then that was pared down to “control one’s own body concerning their physical health and survival” now that has been pared down again to “the point of fetal viability”. Well which one is it, A)a civil right to control one’s body, B)a right to control one’s body only if it concerns one’s health or survival or C) a right up to the point of fetal viability? Does that mean you’re ok with restrictions on abortions during the 3rd trimester, or do we need to go back to A or B? Your statement “Women must have the right to control their bodies …………….” are YOUR words based on YOUR personal feelings, nothing remotely close to that is in the Constitution.You made it up.It is your personal belief. Can’t you see that? On gay marriage , you need to give me a real reason why person X has a civil right to marry and person Y does not. It needs to be more than because you say so. You have a right to your personal beliefs, but let’s stop using the Constitution as a convenient storehouse of personal opinions.
Sojourner
Nope. I simply don’t feel the need to defend my position to you. I don’t feel the need to spend my time outlining every dimension of my position. Nothing I say will change the position of someone like you who wants to legalize discrimination.
Understand that the difference between you and me is you want to force your beliefs on me. I’m not trying to force mine on you. Against abortion? Don’t have one. Against gay marriage? Don’t have one. But you’re telling me that I should not have the legal right to do so, that my gay friends should not have the legal right to do so. My answer: Worry about your own life and stay out of ours.
As to it being “my” interpretation of the Constitution. First, it also happens to be the law of the land. Second, the ninth amendment is explicit about not restricting rights unnecessarily. The reality is that both the anti-abortion and the anti-gay stances are religious beliefs not legal ones. Where in the Constitution does it say that abortion is unconstitutional? It doesn’t because abortion was accepted at the time the Constitution was written. Where in the Constitution does it say that gay people should not be allowed the same rights as straights? It doesn’t. That’s your personal opinion, not the Constitution’s.
You’re the one using the Constitution as a convenient storehouse of personal opinions, not me.
Hey You
Let’s back it up here. Now I’m the one who wants to legalize discrimination? On the contrary, my position is if we are going to change marriage laws to end discrimination, then we can’t discriminate against ANYONE who wants to get married. You’re the one who would put limitations on it.I won’t be having an abortion because I’m male.I won’t be having a gay wedding because I’m not gay and it is illegal anyway. Now,a person should be able to marry their cousin if they want to. If you don’t believe in that, well don’t marry your cousin. Worry about your own life and stay out of theirs.Now I never said that the Constitution says abortion is Unconstitutional. On the contrary, I’ve said many times that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. You are the one that is putting words into the Constitution. Words referring to abortion as a civil right. Same with gay rights, I never said there is anything about it in the Constitution . You are the one saying that it gives gays the right to marry. As far as me forcing my my beliefs on you, please refer to my previous statement….”You have a right to your personal beliefs…” Any athiest, agnostic or non-believer can be against both abortion and gay marriage, it is not exclusively religious people who have those beliefs. Just like some religious people agree with either abortion and gay marriage, both of them or neither of them.
Sojourner
No. I’ve only taken a position on gay marriage, blood relations, and age. There are genetic reasons for blood relations, and age because children cannot legally consent. I disagree that gay marriage relates in any way to polygamy. Those folks who claim to be the most pro-marriage seem particularly obtuse in failing to understand why gay people might also wish to experience the joys of married life. But the reality is their problem is not with gay marriage, it’s with gays. Claiming that gay marriage undermines hetero marriage doesn’t pass the straight face test.
You clearly don’t understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The founding fathers were quite explicit in their position that neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights should be understand to define all rights. In fact, just the opposite.
“Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.”
The good news is time is on my side. The younger generation is much less bigoted when it comes to gays so it’s only a matter of time. We just have to wait until the bigots die out.
Hey You
Hard to get a straight answer here. “You’re the one who would put limitations on it”. True. Or have you changed your mind?
I don’t claim that gay marriage harms hetero marriage, you need to talk with whoever said that.
Yes, all rights are not enumerated in the Constitution, that doesn’t mean we can create those other rights out of thin air. Gays Yes, cousins NO. It’s just not in there.
As far as bigots, are you referring to people with views different than yours? What about tolerance, respect for diversity of opinions? What you’re forgetting is people become more conservative with age. As they mature, their views change. What happened to the hippie generation?
Most went on to normal jobs, marriage, having children.
Even became Republicans.
I’m afraid you’ll never be rid of all the “bigots”,
gay marriage is never going to fly in this country.
This may or may not apply to you, but what cracks me up is that those people throwing around buzzwords like racist,homophobic,intolerant,hatemonger etc. are some of the most hostile,intolerant people out there. They just hate different people…basically anyone who disagrees with them. Also those evil Whites, Christians and Southerners are favorite targets …..and esp. White Christian Southerners.
Sojourner
There’s nothing in the Constitution that protects hetero marriage so your argument fails on those grounds as well.
Guaranteed, gay marriage will fly in this country. Within the next 20 years max. It’s inevitable because people work with gay people, they have gay neighbors, they have gay friends, they have gay relatives. The days of being in the closet are over. It’s much harder to hate a class of people when members of that class are your friends and relatives. There’s absolutely no reason to discriminate against gays on the issue of marriage. You compare it to blood relations, children, and multiple wives. There are real psychological and physical reasons to prevent those. These reasons do not apply to gays.
When it comes to one group of people preventing another group of people from exercising their civil rights, there can be no tolerance. The same arguments were made for discriminating against African Americans. If somebody has a problem with a class of people, so be it. But that does not mean the legislators should create legislation to discriminate against them. That doesn’t mean they have the right to force their religious beliefs on others. The religious right want the freedom to practice their religion by restricting the legal rights of others. It’s supposed to be a free country.
Once again, the difference between you and me is you want to legislate your beliefs. You want to restrict the rights of others. I don’t want discrimination embodied in our laws. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are consistent with my position.
As are the east coast and west coast “elites”. Your concern for those folks is misplaced. They are perfectly capable of looking after themselves. After all, their man is in the WH.
Hey You
You have it all backwards. The gay rights people are the ones trying to change the laws of the land. The majority of people are resisting those changes, NOT trying to take away anyones rights. It is a small group of radicals trying to force their agenda on society, by any backdoor method available. Do I have to say it again? Gay marriage IS NOT a civil right.
Sure, you can think it is but it ISN’T. To use something that isn’t true as a basis for an arguement is disingenuous.
IT ISN’T A RIGHT. Are we clear on that? And who are you to judge other people who want to get married? You come up with “reasons” why not, then point the finger at the majority when they do the exact same thing concerning gay marriage.
It’s religion,bigotry,intolerance, whatever,but when you do it it’s a different story. PLEASE show me an example of a truly tolerant,fair person, because you are giving “rights” to some and denying them to others.
Are your personal biases,prejudices,assumptions getting in the way? As far as Bush, the gay marriage agenda was one of the reasons he won. If the Dems want to keep pushing that issue, and of course abortion, they’ll be lucky if they ever see the White House again. And if they want a guaranteed loss in 2008, Nominate Hillary.
Just a reminder…Gay marriage IS NOT a civil right.
Sojourner
Huh? Are you for real? You’re the one who wants to prevent gays from having the same rights as heteros.
Are you arguing that marriage is not a civil right?
The majority rules thing doesn’t apply when civil rights are involved. America has a long tradition of that stemming from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Brown v BoE was ruled on when the majority were quite against integration. But the SC ruled rightly that it was discriminatory.
Your’re arguing that gays don’t have the same rights as heteros to marry their chosen partner who meets all of the requirements for heteros except for the same sex. That contradicts equal protection under the law.
My position is a legal one, not a religious one and certainly there’s no bigotry. The bigotry is on your side.
Hey You
Your position in not a legal one because the civil right to gay marriage DOES NOT EXIST. You wish it did, but it doesn’t.
You continue to be disingenuous by constantly using that same line to build your ‘case’. You can say any of the following…..”I wish that right existed” “I believe that right should exist” “I think that right should exist” “I want that right to exist” “It would be nice if that right existed” etc. and THEN try to make a case for it, NOT manufacture a right and then throw it around like it is the truth. Anybody can make up a right, say it’s in the Constitution and proclaim it as if it is the truth. And some people will believe it which is why I have a problem with people doing that.
I’ve already debunked the red herring concerning religion in regards to this issue. Go back and read it again if you need to. Bigotry=buzzword=a weak replacement for a real arguement.
Sojourner
Provide me with a list of all the civil rights to which we are entitled.
Hint: the founding fathers didn’t create one because they didn’t think such a list was possible.
So share with me what you know that they didn’t. And make it a real argument.
Hey You
The burden of proof is on you. You are the one making the claim. You are the one stating there is a right to gay marriage…..prove it.
And it needs to be more than “because I say so”.
Do you agree with me that polygamy is a civil right protected by the Constitution just because I say so?
Didn’t think so. Why not? You can make up rights out of thin air, why can’t I?
Sojourner
Simple. It’s called equal protection under the law.
Your polygamy argument is lame because no group is entitled to legally participate in polygamist relationships. In contrast, heteros can participate in marriage but homosexuals can’t. That’s discrimination.
Hey You
OK, so you have NO PROOF.
Your personal opinions prove nothing.
Are you telling me polygamy is illegal? Wow, thanks for informing me. Did you know that gay marriage is illegal?
If Equal protection covers gay marriage then it covers ALL who want to marry, just like it covers ALL races, not just blacks. Do you really want to sit there decide who has rights and who doesn’t? The key word is “Equal”, not “Sojourner’s definition of Equal”. You say gays have a right to marriage but cousins don’t. That’s discrimination.
None of this matters anyways because you have not proven that there is a right to gay marriage.
Sojourner
Once again you display your ignorance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. People aren’t awarded rights… rights are taken away from them.
And you have provided absolutely no reason as to why gays should not have the same right to marry as straights.
The polygamy argument doesn’t hold water. Blacks can’t be discriminated against because their color is an inherent part of what they are. Same thing for gays. Until you can produce a polygamy gene or some other biological evidence, we can only conclude that it is a lifestyle choice rather than an inherent characteristic.
When it comes to inherent characteristics (race, gender, disability), the SC eventually gets around to getting it right. It’s only a matter of time before that’s the case for gays as well.
You’re swimming against the tide.
Hey You
Are you now trying to use the “gay gene” theory as a basis
for legalizing gay marriage? One small problem with that, the “gay gene” DOES NOT EXIST. A gay activist doctor back in the 90s made the claim that there is a gay gene. Since then his “results” have been thoroughly discredited, I bet you already knew that too.
The ONLY hope you have is a Liberal Supreme Court pulling that right out of a hat. Currently we have a moderate retiring and being replaced with a young conservative judge,with 25-30 years to go. Thomas has another 20-30 years to go.Liberal Judge Stevens is 85, he doesn’t have much time left. Any other judges who leave in the next 3 1/2 years will be replaced with conservatives. If by some fluke the Supreme Court declared a right to gay marriage, you can kiss the Democratic party goodbye. You can also count on a Republican majority in the Senate and House for as far as the eye can see. And of course Republican Presidents too.
The gay activists are partly responsible for Bush being in the White House. Constitutional amendments were a direct response to the gay agenda. That brought voters to the polls.
Take a good look at the 2004 election results. 11 States passed Constitutional amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman. 8 of those States banned civil unions as well.
You have more laws and amendments coming too.
And you want to agitate the public more? Why do voters amend their State Constitutions? To prevent Liberal judges from legislating from the bench. Plain and simple.
So what have you got…..
1) The public is solidly against gay marriage
2) You have no proof gay marriage is a civil right
3) You have no proof of a gay gene
4) You have Republican President,Senate and Congress
5) You have a Supreme Court which is becoming more conservative
I believe you are drowning.
Sojourner
The research on gays versus straights is only just beginning but they’re certainly suggestive. Just a few weeks ago, a study showed that gay men respond to images of men while straights respond to images of women. This is an autonomic response not subject to control. So despite your protests, there already is evidence of biological differences and the evidence will grow as the research continues.
The tide is already turning in favor of gays. Gay marriages are currently being held in some parts of this country. As the bigots die off, their offspring who have gay friends and relatives, will not only be comfortable with the idea but actually demand it. Americans, in their hearts, are not bigots.
And you have yet to provide a legal basis for discriminating against gays. You have yet to explain why gays are not entitled to equal protection under law.
All of the above were once true for African Americans but eventually the country came around, as it always does, to not tolerating discrimination.
And you continue to dodge the question of whether marriage is a civil right. If it is, then what is the legal basis for refusing to allow gays the same rights as straights?
You want to rely on a poll. But that’s not how civil rights work. Thankfully.
Hey You
Are you serious? So now you admit there is no proof of a gay gene. Why not be honest in the first place? Biological / genetic differences are found under the microscope, not with photos.
The tide is growing against gay marriage. Texas voters will decide this year, and 11 more states next year.
You have yet to provide proof of a civil right to gay marriage.
Blacks are getting tired of being used to promote the gay agenda. Black are right up there with whites and other races in support of laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
I’m not the one trying to change existing laws,you are. The burden of proof is on you, but you have none. If you have something new to say, please do so. I’m tired of the hearing the same things over and over.
Sojourner
Nope. I just haven’t researched it nor does it matter to me. A good deal of human behavior cannot be traced to a single gene. Genetics is much more complicated than that.
I have a number of gay friends, all of whom state that they never made a choice as to their sexuality. Also, homosexuality has been observed in non-human animals. So I have every confidence that there is a biological basis for it. Or are you going to argue that gays have converted these animals into the homosexual lifestyle?
So what. Time is on the side of equal rights for gays.
Equal protection.
You have yet to provide a shred of evidence as to why they should be discriminated against, except that it’s not yet a popular position. Neither was equal rights for blacks and for women.
Tough.
For homophobes like you, there is no acceptable level of proof. More worrisome is your ignorance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You don’t even seem to understand what equal protection means.
Your position is fueled by hatred for people who have done nothing to you. I feel sorry for you.
Hey You
I’ve covered all of that stuff already.
Just admit it , YOU HAVE NOTHING.
On top of all the other repetetive nonsense,now I’m a homophobe fueled by hatred. Wow, that really proves your case. If I call you a name, does that mean I win?
When I asked for something new I meant something RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC AT HAND, not personal bs.
Typical outcome when debating with a Liberal.
Sojourner
Typical righteous right-winger: You don’t understand the Contitution, you don’t understand the Bill of Rights, and you don’t understand that there has to be a bloody good reason to legally discriminate against somebody in this country. Frankly, the only good reason I can think of is homophobia. If you’re not homophobic, then give me an alternative reason.
And thus far you have not provided a single argument to support this discrimination. Just admit it. YOU HAVE NOTHING, not a single reason to explain why a class of people should receive unequal treatment under the law. It doesn’t come any more un-American than that.
Until you understand the principles this country was founded on, you have no basis on which to debate and the above dialogue is a clear indication of that.
Read the Constitution, read the Bill of Rights, and try to understand what the founders INTENDED. It’s your patriotic duty to do so. And you might learn something.
Hey You
Yeah Yeah ,Heard it all before.
I don’t have to prove anything, YOU DO.
YOU are the one who is trying to change the laws, not me.
YOU are the one making statements of fact.
A civil right to gay marriage….PROVE IT
You tried to pass that off as truth , but failed because it is a sham.
A gay gene…………………..PROVE IT
You tried to pull a fast one there and pass off some bogus discredited information as a fact, but it is a lie.
This is why the gay agenda will continue to lose ground, because it is based on false information,deception,demonizing,name calling,hostility to other opinions,hostility towards Middle America,interfering in school curricula and sneaky political and legal tactics. People have had enough of that “stuff”.
It’s true, if you repeat a lie enough times people will believe it. Only the stupid ones though.
Sojourner
Wrong. You’re arguing for restricting the rights of a class of people. The founding fathers were very clear that the burden is on the government to prove that rights need to be restricted. You’re starting from the opposite direction – that we have to prove that we do have the right. Ass backwards, my friend. Hence the need for you to do your homework on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the legal philosophy of this country.
What discredited information was that? That homosexuality is found in non-human animals? That gay men respond to images of men, not women? Which of these is discredited?
My gay friends and I LIVE in Middle America. Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter is from Wyoming. Which Middle America are you referring to?
You’re sounding a little panicked. Is the reality of my prediction beginning to sink in? Gay marriage in 20 years or less – mark my words. Plenty of time for you to get over your issues with gay people. They’re fine, upstanding people. You’ll like them.
Hey You
I’m not arguing to restrict a “right” because there is no such right to begin with. According to your rules, I claim a right to walk down the street naked but I don’t have to prove it. YOU have to prove I don’t have that right.
I’m serious, where does it say I don’t have that right?
You are trying to use race,gender and disability as comparable to being gay. The “gay gene” theory was shot down in the 90s.
Panicked? I’m laughing at this point,this is becoming very entertaining. You want to talk about gay animals now?
Sorry, that’s just too absurd. It shows the desperation of the gay movement to use something so bizarre.
Some animals eat their young. A man who ate his child could use that fact to justify that it is normal acceptable behavior in humans. How’s that for bizarre?
Webster’s Dictionary: Middle America : the traditional or conservative element of the middle class.
Sojourner
No. Because there’s no biological basis that I’m aware of for walking down the street naked nor does a specific behavior constitute a protected class of people. You continue to display your ignorance by using these silly examples. But then the same kind of nonsense was put forward by those who didn’t believe that African Americans and women deserved equal rights. But the courts finally recognized that skin color is an immutable characteristic and women were real American citizens. The same thing will happen with homosexuality. Time is on our side.
Your understanding of biology is as limited as your understanding of the law. If you did a little reading you’d discover that not all traits are due to a single gene.
I had assumed you were a more thoughtful debater than you’re turning out to be. You’re arguing that there’s no biological basis for being gay and turn your nose up at the evidence provided by the fact that homosexuality occurs in other species. Some animals eat their young – true. But not all do. One of those species that does not is the homo sapien. Not a good choice of an example on your part.
Certainly, Mary Cheney qualifies as Middle America by your definition. So much for that argument.
Did it ever occur to you as to why the religious right is pushing for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage? It’s because they know that there is no constitutional basis for discriminating against homosexuals.
Hey You
It’s hard to be thoughtful when the topic and your arguements are so absurd to begin with. I’m still waiting for your biological proof / a physical component to homosexuality. I want the name of researcher, the date of the study, the results of the study. A RECOGNIZED SCIENTIFIC/GENETIC STUDY TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM. Or is your understanding of biology limited to picture games?
Mary Cheney is a traditional conservative member of the middle class? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Try gay activist lesbian from a wealthy family, the exact opposite.
Here’s what it boils down to. All you have is a handful of activist judges and a 20 year dream. This isn’t slavery or women’s suffrage. You are messing with the will of 2/3 of the population. If the judges continue with this nonsense,
you’re not going to like the result. Using a page out of the gay movements handbook, the majority may decide to ignore the laws and take matters into their own hands. Widespread ,complete and total disregard for the rulings. Who is going to ram it down the majorities throats? The senile old judges? The Army or National Guard? In your dreams. The majority are minorities and southerners, and they sure as hell won’t shoot their fellow Americans over this crap. And the 1/3 who are liberals, activists,racicals,elites, majority who are female, are they going to rise up against the 2/3? Yeah right. Remember, it’s the 2/3 who own most of the guns and are majority male.
These court games will only go on for so long. The grass roots resistance is just getting wound up. By continuing to try to force your agenda on society, you are creating the very thing you whine about, anti-gay sentiment. This isn’t a game, you have no idea what you’re doing. Do you care? Hell no. You’re wasting my time, I have more important things to do than listen to your ramblings. Say whatever you want, it’s all irrelevant anyway.
Sojourner
Look it up. I’m not your researcher. Use google. Summaries are easily found on the Internet.
Tough. This was also true during the civil rights era. Are you arguing that African Americans didn’t deserve equal rights because the majority didn’t like it? Yet again you display your ignorance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which are quite clear in protecting the rights of the minority against the majority. Look it up. It’s on the Internet.
So we’re not a country of laws? You are really over the top here. Have there been riots in response to gay marriage in Massachusetts and California? Of course not.
The grass roots resistance is nowhere near as strong as you think it is. Sure, people are willing to vote against it but are they willing to break the law? A few nut cases will. But most people absolutely will not.
The reality is that support for gay rights right now is stronger than it’s ever been. Sure, the majority is against gay marriage now. But if somebody had told me 15 years ago that my oh-so-conservative company would some day offer benefits for same-sex partners, I would have told him he was delusional. Yet it has come to pass. Respect for gays was also a major part of this company’s new diversity program. Absolutely amazing.
The reality is country was built on respect for equal rights and fairness. The momentum is in our favor.
Through this entire discussion, you have not given a single reason as to why gays should be discriminated against. Not one. Other than the majority doesn’t like it. Why does it bother you so much? If there is going to be government-sanctioned discrimination, there had bloody well better be a good reason for it.
The only argument the anti-gays have been able to produce is the “damage” it would do to straight marriage. I started an informal poll a few years ago of my married friends to determine how many felt that their marriage was threatened by gay marriage. Although not all support gay marriage, not a single one believes that gay marriage will be a problem for their own marriage.
I’m sorry this upsets you so badly but, frankly, I don’t understand why. Get to know some gay folks. You’ll discover that they have the same values and dreams as everyone else. And it amazes me that there is an uproar over people simply wanting to love the people most important to them.