Votes on Gay Rights Never Match Public Opinion.

[mikekerrIII]

So God is a flip-flopper?

Sometimes in the same book.

[king arthas]

Why do you feel old? I'm 18 that is adulthood, so how old are you and your kids?

[mikekerrIII]

Why do you feel old? I'm 18 that is adulthood, so how old are you and your kids?

My youngest is turns 24 this year. I'm 57

And the idea of talking to someone whose mother can take away their computer is what makes me feel old

[Spike-X]

Why do you feel old? I'm 18 that is adulthood

Haha!

Hahahahahahaha!







Ha!

[KiFF86]

My very favorite example that no one knows about: "When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof." (Deuteronomy 22:8)

It was a useful rule at the time; houses were built close together with flat roofs that attached to each other, and hey here's a simple idea to help you get along with your neighbors and not be brought to court if one of the neighbor kids trips and falls off in a game of roof tag. But the rule is irrelevant now and nobody puts a railing inside their rain gutters. Because we're not stupid and can understand the cultural context of what we're reading.

I miss roof tag.

[Justin D.]

I didn't think Obama was going to make any big marriage equality pushes until his second term, so this surprised me. In a good way, but still. Here's one thing I don't understand?

Why the hell is this being voted on? People didn't have a right to vote on the end of segregation, right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Because I'm pretty sure if people could've voted on that issue, segregation would've been legal for a good while longer. Sometimes, the court system has to just step the fuck up and make decisions. This is one of those times. This doesn't get a vote. I don't get a vote on this. You don't get a vote on this. North Carolina shouldn't get a vote on this. This, simply, should be made into law by the governing bodies put in place to do such things.

[Iangould]

Segregation was legal for close to a century in the US.

Then the Supreme court accepted a legal theory that said that "separate but equal" was inconsistent with the Consitutional guarantee of equal treatent under the law.

Similarly, state anti-sodomy laws were legally valid until the Supreme Court accpted a legal theory that they were inconsistent with Constitutional rights.

As yet no-one has come up with a legal theory capable of convincing the Supreme court that marriage equality is a constitutionally-protected right.

[Paradox]

Jared has one angle:

I suspect that opinion polls on this are actually misleading by several points, simply because a lot of people who answer polls, even anonymously, will tend to lie about their views in order to sound more open-minded. They don't want to sound like they're against a certain thing or certain group of people.

Not to mention the only people's opinions you get on polls are the ones who don't say "no, I'd rather not take your poll" (or alternatively "piss off, I don't have time for your crap!" )

[dupont2005]

I didn't think Obama was going to make any big marriage equality pushes until his second term, so this surprised me. In a good way, but still. Here's one thing I don't understand?

Why the hell is this being voted on? People didn't have a right to vote on the end of segregation, right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Because I'm pretty sure if people could've voted on that issue, segregation would've been legal for a good while longer. Sometimes, the court system has to just step the fuck up and make decisions. This is one of those times. This doesn't get a vote. I don't get a vote on this. You don't get a vote on this. North Carolina shouldn't get a vote on this. This, simply, should be made into law by the governing bodies put in place to do such things.

It will eventually make it's way to federal legislation, just takes time. I definitely see it heading that way though. People act like NC banning gay marriage is a surprise, something new, or that gays were getting married twenty years ago in NC or anywhere else for that matter. This is their last holdout, a state constitutional amendment. I think the push for so many states to pass such a law in such a rush, when for the past couple hundred years not a single gay couple had been married in their states, is because they know the hammer is coming down and they want to make it a states rights issue. It's not going to work. In fact I see it as them accelerating the process.

[Paradox]

king arthas needs a paddlin':

Well I don't know about you guys but I think staying away from women on their periods is a good idea. I mean women can be pretty irrational and get mad easily. I mean just recently my mom looked at my grades and when she found out I had 1 E and 2 D's she got mad and took my computer away, and when I said she was overreacting she called me dumb. Now tell me doesn't that sound irrational.
Mylife can sure be difficult. I feel sorry for myself.

Just shaddap and do your homework, young man! She's so disappointed in you!

[mikekerrIII]

Segregation was legal for close to a century in the US.

Then the Supreme court accepted a legal theory that said that "separate but equal" was inconsistent with the Consitutional guarantee of equal treatent under the law.

Similarly, state anti-sodomy laws were legally valid until the Supreme Court accpted a legal theory that they were inconsistent with Constitutional rights.

As yet no-one has come up with a legal theory capable of convincing the Supreme court that marriage equality is a constitutionally-protected right.

If you can come up with one it would help.

Finding what part of the Constitution makes that a right is the challenge, It simply might not be a Constitutional right yet. The SC doesn' t have the privilege of creating new rights even when necessary it mst have constitutional or even common law support. That is thin on the ground

Ted Olson and company are trying to get at least a bit closer to equality with the DOMA case and might do it under the due process clause

[dupersuper]

I'll be right-click-save-as-ing that when I get home.

Same here, and I'm a godless heathen.

[Kieran_Frost]

Wait I have a question how can you be a lesbian pastor if Christianity is against gays? It just doesen't make sense to me for gays to be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I mean I can get gays being atheist, Buddhist or other religions that don't have anything against gays. But it just seems weird to me, kind of like a black guy joining the KKK, or a jew joining the Nazis.

You can be a Christian without believing every single thing written in the Bible. Believing in God, and believing the Bible is his literal word is NOT the same thing. I am a Christian, I'm gay, and I see no contradiction in that. Plenty of people believe in the Bible, but don't condone slavery (which the Bible does), or stoning a woman to death (which the Bible does). Many treat the Bible as a "rough guide OF THE TIME" but not literal truth. It doesn't make their faith any less "true". If that makes sense?

[thehod]

Not to mention the only people's opinions you get on polls are the ones who don't say "no, I'd rather not take your poll" (or alternatively "piss off, I don't have time for your crap!" )

I think now is the opportune time to present this little snippet from the classic Yes, Prime Minister..

[Sir Humphrey demonstrates how public surveys can reach opposite conclusions]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.
[survey two]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
[does a double-take]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.

[USArmyParatrooper]

You can be a Christian without believing every single thing written in the Bible. Believing in God, and believing the Bible is his literal word is NOT the same thing. I am a Christian, I'm gay, and I see no contradiction in that. Plenty of people believe in the Bible, but don't condone slavery (which the Bible does), or stoning a woman to death (which the Bible does). Many treat the Bible as a "rough guide OF THE TIME" but not literal truth. It doesn't make their faith any less "true". If that makes sense?

Well that does pose a conundrum. If not every single word in the Bible is true, that means either God is fallible or it was written solely by man without the influence of God. Personally I believe the latter to be true, but then I don't consider myself a Christian.