Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Connecticut Supremes: Who They Are and How They Voted

Timothy Kincaid

October 10th, 2008

Who are the Supreme Court Justices of the State of Connecticut and how did they vote? Here’s a little bit of information.

Voting for Marriage Equality:

The majority opinion was written by Justice Richard N. Palmer. He was appointed associate justice in 1993 by Governor Lowell Weicker of the “Connecticut Party” (Weicker left the Republican Party to run independently). Palmer is a Democrat.

Justice Flemming L. Norcott was appointed associate justice in 1992, also by Weicker. Norcott is a Democrat.

Justice Joette Katz was also appointed associate justice in 1992 by Weicker. She is also a Democrat

Lubbie Harper is an appellate court justice who sat on the panel for the case. He stepped in when Chief Justice Chase Rogers recused herself due to a possible conflict of interest. Haper was nominated to the appellate court by Governor Jodi Rell, a Republican, but is a Democrat.

Voting in opposition:

Justice David Borden was the active chief justice at the time of the hearing. He was appointed in 1990 and is the only justice to have been appointed by a Democrat, Governor William O’Neil. He was replace in 2007 by Chief Justice Chase Rogers, an independent. Bordon is a Democrat. He argued that gay people are not adequately disadvantaged politically to be considered a suspect class.

Justice Christine S. Vertefeuille was appointed associate justice in 2000 by John Rowland, a Republican. Vertefeuille is a Democrat.

Justice Peter T. Zarella was also appointed in 2001 by Rowland. Zarzella is the sole Republican voting on the issue. His separate dissent stated that marriage laws are for the regulation of procreation.

Interestingly, every justice deciding in favor of marriage equality was either appointed by a Republican Governor or by an independant Governor who had served for decades in the House and Senate as a Republican, even seeking the party’s nomination for President.

This is a situation that closely follow that of the California Judiciary where three of the four affirmative votes were from Republicans appointed by Republican Governors and in Massachusetts where three of four affirmative votes for marriage came from justices that were Republican Governor appointments.

Which makes me wonder. Do those in the Republican Party who rant and scream about “activist judges” know that they are critizing their own Governors?

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Sanna
October 10th, 2008 | LINK

“Justice Peter T. Zarella was also appointed in 2001 by Rowland. Zarzella is the sole Republican voting on the issue. His separate dissent stated that marriage laws are for the regulation of procreation.”

Now I don’t have master degree in English, nor is English my native language, but doesn’t this mean that if marriage laws are for regulation of procreation, there should be a law against procreation outside of marriage?
Also that before getting married all couples should be tested if they are fertile enough to get married?

Eddie89
October 10th, 2008 | LINK

Justice Zarella probably also believes that a woman’s place is in the kitchen! Barefoot and pregnant, no less!

I’m sure he’s also of the opinion that it’s fine to beat your slaves only once per week, but NEVER on the Sabbath! It is an abomination to the Lord to “work” on the Sabbath!

Someone should tell Justice Zarella that we’re now in the 21st century! And he’s the Republican justice! And people wonder why I’m no longer a Republican!


California – Vote “NO” on Prop. 8!
Arizona – Vote “NO” on Prop. 102! AGAIN!
Florida – Vote “NO” on Amendment 2!

Joel
October 11th, 2008 | LINK

“He argued that gay people are not adequately disadvantaged politically to be considered a suspect class.”

What does this mean?

Tavdy
October 11th, 2008 | LINK

It means that Borden believes that gay couples are not put at a disadvantage by being denied the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

Timothy Kincaid
October 11th, 2008 | LINK

Joel,

In layman’s terms, justices apply various standards to determine whether a measure of differentiation is disallowable discrimination under equal protections provisions. The highest level of scrutiny is Strict Scrutiny – which is applied to a Suspect Class – in which the courts start with the presumption that any discrimination is likely to be based on animus.

Suspect Class requires:

A unique group with,
Immutable characteristics,
A history of discrimination,
and political weakness.

Judge Borden argued that the gay community has too much political power to be a suspect class.

I would suggest that the very existence of laws that deliberately identify and segregate gay persons for inequal treatment are an evidence of inadequate political power. That gay people have lobbied and exerted extreme effort to achieve some limited measures of the equality provided in the constitutions of the state and nation and STILL do not have an equal status should have made this clear for the judge. That three states are very close to changing their constitution (to follow 26 others) to specifically exclude gay persons from equal treatment under the law should have given him a clue that their is no “powerful homosexual lobby”.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this is that no justice seems to have questioned the “unique group” or “immutable characteristic” requirements. It seems the ex-gays have lost that battle.

Dave
October 11th, 2008 | LINK

Timothy,

Your post ends on a very foolish note.

“Do those in the Republican Party who rant and scream about “activist judges” know that they are critizing their own Governors?”

This is an entirely irrelevant question. Critics of judicial activism are criticising judges, after all, not governors. Furthermore, since judicial activism can be motivated by any bias whatsoever, there is no reason to suspect that Republican judges are less capable of it than judges belong to other parties.

As for your question itself, the answer to it is yes.

The most activist court ruling in the last 50 years was beyond doubt the Supreme Court’s holding in Roe v. Wade. You cannot have missed the criticism of that decision as activist (made by both left and right-leaning critics) over the years. Roe was authored by a Republican justice who was appointed by Richard Nixon!

Please don’t bring up this silly point again. You will only be pointing out your own ignorance.

Timothy Kincaid
October 11th, 2008 | LINK

Dave,

If you don’t like my “silly points”, don’t read here.

As for the rest, I think you misunderstand my posting. As you pointed out, Republicans (like Democrats) appoint who they think will best interpret the Constitution and apply it to the acts of the legislature. Quite often those judges then do just that – apply their careful consideration of the Constitution, precedent, logic, and judgement to the law – much to the chagrin of those parties who were hoping for partisan action rather than justice.

And those who scream about “activist judges” very seldom know who appointed those judges.

In a fairly near future there will be few – other than some die-hard bigots – that will think that applying law equally to gay people and straight people was anything other than an obvious result of a careful study of the Constitution. But today, to those who think in terms of Culture War and animosity to gay people, it seems like judicial activism.

Dave
October 11th, 2008 | LINK

“If you don’t like my “silly points”, don’t read here.”

Bwah ha ha ha ha ha! As with most ideologues you have thin skin!

I find browsing BTB informative and useful in a number of ways — irrespective of any poltical differences I have with its authors.

In spite of how dimissive you and Jim have been on occasion I will continue to make comments here when I feel the need.

* * * * * *

I understood you post perfectly well. It is you who seems to have misunderstood me.

My point was that one doesn’t need to know (or care) who appointed a judge (if said judge was appointed) in order to label one of his opinions activist. One need only look to the opinion itself.

I pointed out nothing about the hopes of those who appoint judges. What I did point out is that any judge of any political bent can produce an activist ruling.

While you are correct that judges often correctly apply the law to their cases, it is also regretably true that they all too often fail to do so. If judges misapply the law in a way that usurps legislative authority they have produced an activist ruling.

* * * * *

“In a fairly near future there will be few – other than some die-hard bigots – that will think that applying law equally to gay people and straight people was anything other than an obvious result of a careful study of the Constitution.”

When discussing marriage laws this point is way off base. You are looking at the matter from the perspective of the gay left.

The left’s assertion that the issue of same-sex marriage is about treating “applying law equally to gay people and straight people” just as we apply laws the same way with black people and white people is without legal merit. Marriage is about sexuality. So sex and sexual orientation are quite germaine to marriage laws.

Stefano A
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

Marriage is about sexuality. So sex and sexual orientation are quite germaine to marriage laws.

I’m not so sure that’s true. I think historically it has been lest about “sexuality” and more about patriarchal “gender” dominance and power.

Stefano A
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

I’m also not sure that even with the origins of “one man, one woman” sexuality was given much thought as it was the introduction of “one” and “one” as a proscription against polygamy — which proscription again was more related to “dominance” issues.

Dave
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

Stefano A,

Are you saying that marriage in matriachal societies was about “patriarchal ‘gender’ dominance and power”?

I was dealing with the nature of the institution itself. An historical examination of marriage in various cultures would be beside the point.

Stefano A
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

I was dealing with the nature of the institution itself. An historical examination of marriage in various cultures would be beside the point.

No. I wasn’t speaking of “various cultures”. I was speaking more of the way marriage has been presented within the specific Anglo-Saxon type cultures. That is, the way marriage is attempted to be portrayed in the “American” context.

If you are speaking cross-culturally such as in matriarchal societies, then I can only thing you are using “sexuality” as a euphemism for “procreation”; i.e., the arguments used that the purpose of marriages were for procreation. Which in itself was often times related to “power” regardless of whether the institution was headed by a matriarch or patriarch. In that sense it was often related to tribal power.

Stefano A
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

BTW, Dave:

This is something of a tangent, but I’m not sure what you meant by Timothy’s comment you quoted as being seen from the perspective of the gay left.

I presume you mean the viewing of SSM and DADT, for examples, as being a matter of Civil Rights, while evidently for the “Gay conservative” it’s a matter of something else?

Dale Carpenter in a commentary at the Independent Gay Forum tried to raise a similar dichotomy where early on he proclaims how he has always fought for gay rights then later on states “Gay leftists tend to see access to marriage and the military as legalistic matters of “civil rights,” even as they distrust these institutions. Gay conservatives eschew such rights talk, and instead see these institutions as important traditionalizing, stabilizing, and integrating forces in our lives.”

Setting aside how such comments are so much “broad brushing”; i.e. treating all “gay leftists” or all “gay conservatives” as being of the same mind, intent or motivation, I fail to see the dichotomy he is trying to paint.

The political fight for civil rights, and the fight of transformational activism for the recognition of such institutions as marriage and the military being important traditionalizing, stablilizing and integrating forces are not somehow mutually exclusive of one another for what Carpenter refers to as “gay progressives” (switching terms from “gay left” to “gay progressives” for whatever reason).

Some gay “radical leftists” are against assimilation or find it in some respects distasteful as much as some gay “radical rightiss” believe marriage should maintain it’s traditional heterosexual biblical meaning.

Neither of which would be representative of “most gays” I don’t think.

For most gays, if anything, it is because of the perceived stabilizing, and integrating forces in our lives that the civil rights issues to allow for the legal particiaption in such institutions are of such importance as well as being a means to make such institutions available to those who wish to participate in them even if others do not. That even for those “gay leftists” Carpenter asserts are distrustful who see the issue as a legal issue do so because they believe that whether they wish such assimilation for themselves or not it is personally irrelevant, as there is the belief others should have the option.

On a personal note, it has been my observation that Timothy would not fall among the “far ideological left” (as neither would I). It would also be my observation that Timothy’s comment would be related to the eventual success of such assimilation or normalization as Dale Carpenter was referring to as being of “primary importance to ‘Gay conservatives’ “, which would likewise lead to the eventual recognition of why such attempts to deprive gays and lesbians of the same civil rights, as Timothy asserted, would appear archaic.

With the exception being that the winning of legal civil rights is not dependent necessarily on waiting for populist “society” in general (i.e., the “success” of transformational activitism) to see homosexuality in a normalized manner before we’re afforded the same legal treatment in societal participation and recognition. But this is not to say that transformational activism ends when legal political activism for civil rights is achieved, or is it to say that legal civil rights cannot be won without transformational activism having succeeded.

In other words, if in California Prop 8 is defeated that “legal civil rights” win does not mean transformational activism will no longer be necessary or that normalization will have been achieved.

I fail to see the point of your comment about the “left perspective” other than an effort to try to introduce an internecion political divisiveness unnecessarily into the discussion.

As similar to Timothy, if one does not hold hope that at some point in the future, either through transformational activism or political legal activism such institutionalized homophobia and stripping of rights such as those we see today in constitutional amendments are not seen as archaic as racial segration has come to be seen, it makes small difference whether one fights the battle as a transformational activist or political legal activist.

The reality is that both are and will be required which is why we have such things as National Coming Out Day (yesterday in the US, on the 12th in the UK).

Does that mean that homophobia or heterosexism will be irradicated? No. No more than denominational fighting has ended between religions or tribal genocides have ended, or racism has been totally irradicated. But the hope must be held out that such fights surrounding the normalization of homosexuality will become to be seen as recidivist as hanging onto racist attitudes and the codefication of those prejudices as unconscionable for the majority. To denounce such idealism for our community would be self-nihilation.

Ben in Oakland
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

Stefano: very well said. I’m a man of somewhat fewer words, so I’d boil it down to my oft said comment:

It’s not about morality, or family, or miltary preparedness, or any of it. It is strictly about how much the very existsence of gay people bothers some straight people, and some wanna-be-straight-but-ain’t people. It all boils down to that, whether they think it is what their god wants or they came up with it all by themselves.

Normalization is merely the process by which the prejudice, though still extant, receives the same disapproval as the object of the prejudice from its holders. Increasingly, they will be in the minority, unless the handmaid’s tale comes to pass. they already know this, which is why they are screaming that somehow, they are the victims if we are treated no differently than they are.

That whole editorial from the Paradise newspaper demonstrated it clearly: tolerance is the new name for prejudice. It sounds better.

Jason D
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

Ben, Stefano, couldn’t agree more.

Some people view life as a system of pecking orders. If gays are moved up in the social and legal pecking order, some straight people view this as losing ground. Equality doesn’t make sense to them. To them, equality means they are not special, important, better than other people. In their eyes, we’ll always be lower than dirt. If we’re eye to eye with them, (in their minds) they’re as low as we are.

And some people can’t handle that.

Equality bothers people with nothing else to lose, because even though they may not be at the top of the heap, at least there are still people lower than them. There’s still someone to look down on. It’s why reality TV is so popular, we can all go “well, at least my life isn’t THAT bad.” When they have no one left to look down on, they’ll have to actually deal with their own issues, their own problems. When they can no longer look down on others, they will have to look at themselves. And that terrifies them.

Dave
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

Stefano A,

I will deal with your posts in turn.

When I wrote “various cultures” I meant any culture whatsoever: the cultures that were precursors to ours would fit the bill just fine.

When you say “I was speaking more of the way marriage has been presented within the specific Anglo-Saxon type cultures,” you are suggesting exactly the sort of historical analysis I didn’t mean. An examination of the history of marriage in any culture would be beside the point.

“Marriage is about sexuality” means that the marital relationship is a sexual one. This is a basic fact about the institution itself. The power dymanics between the sexes at a given place and time do not alter this.

“If you are speaking cross-culturally such as in matriarchal societies, then I can only thing you are using “sexuality” as a euphemism for “procreation”…”

Of course I wasn’t speaking cross-culturally at all. But regardless, I don’t see how you could think I was using sexuality as a euphemism for procreation. When I use the term sexuality I mean just that: everything pertaining to the division of human beings into males and females.

Dave
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

Now Stefano A,

Your next post was lengthy; I will reply only to those parts that deal with what I have written.

When I told Kincaid he was “looking at the matter from the perspective of the gay left,” I did not mean the viewing of DADT or same-sex marriage as civil rights issues. So I’m afraid your long discussion of Dale Carpenter’s commentary was pointless.

As an aside, the quote from Carpenter does bring up one interesting point about me: I agree with conservatives that there is far too much ‘rights talk’ in our society nowadays; I also agree that the treatment of gay couples and gay soldiers can be properly considered as civil rights concerns.

Getting back to your post, I have not asserted that Timothy Kincaid is of the ““far ideological left.” What I have said is that he is an ideologue as far as gay issues are concerned. This means he is uncapable of understanding how a non-ideologue sees things.

I have not tried to introduce any unnecessary political divisiveness into the discussion, and I take considerable exception to your suggestion that I intended to do so.

I think it is the gay left that is making the issue of providing a place for gay couples in our laws needlessly divisive. They are doing so by suing their fellow citizens instead of trying to convince them. This is at the heart of my comment to Kincaid.

When I told him he looked at the marriage issue from the perspective of the gay left I meant the way he looked at marriage as a legal, constitutional issue. Like left-wingers generally, he views any attempt to distinguish traditional marriage from a homosexual union as wrong. As a gay leftist he goes even further and insists that any such attempt must violate every constitution in the land!

This extreme point of view is the reading of the opinion that gay marriage and straight marriage are exactly the same into our constitutions. In other words, the gay left wants courts to “reinterpret” constituions so as to disenfranchise their opponents.

To Tim Kincaid I am a bad man because I disapprove. But to me Tim Kincaid is a bad citizen.

Stefano A
October 12th, 2008 | LINK

I did not mean the viewing of DADT or same-sex marriage as civil rights issues. So I’m afraid your long discussion of Dale Carpenter’s commentary was pointless. . . .
As an aside, the quote from Carpenter does bring up one interesting point about me: I agree with conservatives that there is far too much ‘rights talk’ in our society nowadays; I also agree that the treatment of gay couples and gay soldiers can be properly considered as civil rights concerns. . . .
I think it is the gay left that is making the issue of providing a place for gay couples in our laws needlessly divisive. They are doing so by suing their fellow citizens instead of trying to convince them.

My specific emphasis of the Dale Carpenter commentary was an attempt to specifically address your third point above. That is: “the winning of legal civil rights is not dependent necessarily on waiting for populist “society” in general (i.e., the “success” of transformational activitism) to see homosexuality in a normalized manner before we’re afforded the same legal treatment in societal participation and recognition.” That same legal treatment is not limited to only what you deam to be legitimate civil rights issues; i.e., DADT or marrital rights. When I can be fire for the mere fact of being gay, that is a civil rights issue completely unrelated to my marrital or military status. When I can be denied housing for the mere fact of being gay, that is a civil rights issue completely unrelated to my marrital or military status. When I can be expelled from a public school for expressing support of my community, or for those who are straight to likewise be expelled, that is a civil rights issue completely unrelated to my marrital status or military status. When I can be refused medical service by a public (i.e. non-religious institution or religious institution receiving federal funding) that is a civil rights issue. This list can go and on.

So as I mentioned, why I took exception to Dale Carpenter’s commentary is relevant to your comments. While social acceptance would be nice, waiting for populist “society” in general (i.e., the “success” of transformational activitism) to see homosexuality in a normalized manner before we’re afforded the same legal treatment in societal participation and recognition is completely unacceptable. It is not mandatory for a Racial Supremacist for example to either condone, accept, or believe the object of their prejudice is their equal. However, legally they must at least respect those individuals civil rights and tolerate not being able to legally discriminate against them. What you suggest is the social equivalent of telling African Americans during the days of discrimiantion that they could not be afforded the legal protections or file suit when their rights were violated because society had not yet moved beyond its racist attitudes. What you are telling Timothy and myself is to not be “uppity”, to know our place, do not make waves, do not rock the boat because it upsets the sensibilities of the intolerant. The right not to be offended is not a civil right.

Stefano A
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

I’m still unsure I follow your line of argument here:

Marriage is about sexuality” means that the marital relationship is a sexual one. This is a basic fact about the institution itself. The power dymanics between the sexes at a given place and time do not alter this.

Without the argument of this “sexual” relationship as it relates to procreation, the sexuality of the couple in terms of the marrital relationship would be the same.

If you do not consider it the same, it is attributing superiority to the heterosexuals sexual relationship and the devaluation of the homosexual couples’.

Maybe others can assist her, because I fail to see what point you’re trying to make with this line of argument. At basic glance it seems to be an appeal to “tradition”.

Stefano A
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

I think it is the gay left that is making the issue of providing a place for gay couples in our laws needlessly divisive. They are doing so by suing their fellow citizens instead of trying to convince them.

I would like to add just one other comment (perhaps consider it a caveat) regarding this particular paragraph.

I do agree that law-suits against, for instance, completely religious instutions (e.g., parochial schools which do not receive government funding, faith-based social service agencies which are not publicly funded) are divisive as I do in those instances see those institutions as being within their religious rights.

In those instances I do agree, that is more effective for those who share the same faith to work within the confines of the faith for change or theological reconsiderations rather than in the legal arena.

Timothy Kincaid
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

Dave,

I rather imagine that our regular readers are getting a little chuckle from your description of me as a “left-winger” or “a gay leftist”.

And as for you being a “bad man”, well no not really.

I do think you are reactionary, often ill informed, amusingly arrogant, contrarian, argumentative, and not infrequently foolish. I think that you do not have a firm set of principles from which you base your idealogy. I think that you are too often inclined to approach issues from the perspective of what group you are in agreement with or which group you oppose rather than think about positions on your own. I think that you are more than a little hostile to gays individually and collectively and suspect that there is more than a little internalized conflict going on.

But “bad”? I don’t think I’d call you bad.

Now if we are done insulting each other, let’s return to the conversation at hand. I’ll not be entertaining any future personal jabs at this site, towards me or anyone else.

Dave
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

Stefano A,

That third point was yours, not mine.

“What you are telling Timothy and myself is to not be “uppity”, to know our place, do not make waves, do not rock the boat because it upsets the sensibilities of the intolerant.”

How the hell did you get that out of anything I wrote?

When you write such garbage, Stefano, I have to suspect that you are so steeped in victimism your sanity has been impaired.

Dave
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

“Without the argument of this “sexual” relationship as it relates to procreation, the sexuality of the couple in terms of the marrital relationship would be the same.

“If you do not consider it the same, it is attributing superiority to the heterosexuals sexual relationship and the devaluation of the homosexual couples’.”

Stefano! What the fuck!

What is the difficulty here? What is so hard about the concept of a sexual relationship?

The relationships between siblings, between parents and children, between teachers and students, between doctors and patients, are not sexual relationships — at least not per se. The marital relationship is. It is a sexual (non-platonic) relationship.

That’s all I meant!

Dave
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

Timothy,

So nice to hear from you again at long last.

It’s clear you don’t think I count as a regular reader. But you honestly don’t think you’re a member of the gay left? Then you don’t know yourself very well.

When I wrote, “he views any attempt to distinguish traditional marriage from a homosexual union as wrong … he goes even further and insists that any such attempt must violate every constitution in the land,” I was accurate, wasn’t I?

You say you don’t think I’m a bad man. Well, Tim, actions speak louder than words. And the way you’ve treated me since I’ve been commenting here speaks volumes.

“I do think you are reactionary, often ill informed, amusingly arrogant, contrarian, argumentative, and not infrequently foolish. “

That’s funny. If you replace the term “reactionary” with “gay leftist” that sentence accurately sums up my opinion of you. Go figure.

“I think that you do not have a firm set of principles from which you base your idealogy.”

This from a man who told me to go have a beer because I dared question him about Congressional authority to pass anti-discrimination laws on private entities.

“I think that you are too often inclined to approach issues from the perspective of what group you are in agreement with or which group you oppose rather than think about positions on your own.”

Based on what, Kincaid old boy? Your reading of tea leaves?

“I think that you are more than a little hostile to gays individually and collectively and suspect that there is more than a little internalized conflict going on.”

All because I disagree with you. [Personal insult removed due to violation of Comments Policy]

“I’ll not be entertaining any future personal jabs at this site, towards me or anyone else.”

[Edited due to violation of Comments Policy]

Stefano A
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

Excuse me! But that third point, that law suits are divsive, that we should work on normalation instead was, indeed, your point, not mine.

If anything, my argument has been and still is for the need for both transformational activism and political activism.

You speak of the importance of gainin acceptance, to quote Barney Frank, from the post Jim Burroway just posted: “But when some talk about teaching the value of tolerance, when some talk about condemning violence based on someone’s basic characteristics, we are told we cannot do that. We have been told that we cannot let a school teach acceptance of the gay lifestyle. Think about that: What does non-acceptance mean? If acceptance is interpreted to mean approval, then I don’t care about it. There are bigots in this world whose approval holds no charms for me. But when non-acceptance means not accepting someone’s right to live, we have a serious problem.
Now, while I would have said “we cannot let a school teach tolerance” I am referencing this mainly as a continuation of the discussion of social transformation. How do you achieve normalization when you can’t even talk about tolerance without having to bring law suits upon public schools?

And this

In other words, the gay left wants courts to “reinterpret” constituions so as to disenfranchise their opponents.

Non-sense.

The extension of rights to gays and lesbians in no way disenfranchises the heterosexual population. They are not being excluded, their rights are not being removed, in fact, their lives do not change in any way either in their day-to-day lives or with regard to their legal rights and responsibilities.

With regard to same-sex marriage this is particularly so.

With regard to your original comment

marriage is about treating “applying law equally to gay people and straight people” just as we apply laws the same way with black people and white people is without legal merit. Marriage is about sexuality. So sex and sexual orientation are quite germaine to marriage laws.

And my attempts to understand the specific point you were trying to make, in the light of your latest lashing out, I’m making the choice to not even pursue that conversation further in an attempt to comprehend you.

Mainly because I still fail to see what makes sexual oriention “germaine”. If one removes any procreational discussion of sex with regard to marriages, and/or removes the biblical proscriptions one’s sexual orientation is completely irrelevant. Not germaine.

It is a sexual (non-platonic) relationship.

Agreed. But this as it relates to sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with the state acknowledgement of same-sex or heterosexual marriages. It is only relevant as mentioned when procreational or biblical considerations are imposed upon the institution.

Dave
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

Stefano A,

I’m sorry, Stefano. I misread your comment. I thought you were saying the bit from Carpenter was my third point! Please excuse me.

My point about using courts to disenfranchise isn’t nonsense. Not at all.

There are many possible views on the subject of gay couples and legal recognition. A court can only properly take a side if the law already does so. The gay left knows perfectly well that the constitutions in this country say nothing about the topic of gay marriage. But they still want courts to take their side, which means they want all other positions ruled unconstitutional. To call this unfair is an understatement.

None of this has anything to do with disenfranchising heterosexuals as a group any more than it does with disenfranchising homosexuals as a group.

You must stop looking at this from the perpective of gay victimhood.

Timothy Kincaid
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

Constitutions are not like municiple codes or state law. They do not deal in topics. There is no wording that addresses the specifics and minutia of process, form, or procedure.

One will not find the words “same-sex marriage” in constitutions just as one will not find “lunch counter” or “country club” or “school board meeting”.

Contitutions deal in principles. And because they look at concepts and apply them to specific situations they remain valuable and timely and relevant.

Stefano A
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

The gay left knows perfectly well that the constitutions in this country say nothing about the topic of gay marriage.

Neither do constitutions specifically address any marriage, as I’ve mentioned before (somewhere) either straight or gay.

As for any further response, Timothy’s post above says it best.

None of this has anything to do with disenfranchising heterosexuals as a group any more than it does with disenfranchising homosexuals as a group.

You know, this pattern of yours of making a statement and then denying you made it is really becoming tiresome.

Verbatim from one of your above posts:

the gay left wants courts to “reinterpret” constituions so as to disenfranchise their opponents.

So! Whom exactly are you alluding to as being “disenfranchised”?

And disenfranchised how exaclty?

Stefano A
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

So! Whom exactly are you alluding to as being “disenfranchised”?

And disenfranchised how exaclty?

Nevermind these questions.

I now know what you are alluding to.

You want people to be able to vote on what civil rights certain groups should be afforded and what civil rights certain groups should not be afforded.

Which gives me pause to wonder if you truly understand the principles which underly the bill of rights, why they’re called the bill of rights, and if you truly comprehend the founding principles of a democracy which has been said repeatedly is to prevent the tyranny of a majority over that of a minority.

Timothy Kincaid
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

I think that perhaps some misunderstanding of the term “disenfranchised”. To disenfranchise a group is to take away or nullify the effectiveness of a the voting ability or rights of a subpopulation. A classic example would be Jim Crow laws or selecting a polling station in a location that was intimidating to a segment of voters.

To find that a law or an initiative is contrary to provision of a Constitution is not de facto disenfranchisement. There is no indication whatsoever that any court found restrictive marriage laws to be unconstitutional because those so voting were “opponents” of “the gay left”.

This seems to me to be another example of results-based objection.

Some people believe that those decisions with which they disagree are “judicial activism” or “unconstitutional acts” or “disenfranchising” or “judicial fiat”. But they do not question the authority of those courts who find in their favor on the exact same question. I find such thinking to be driven more from emotion than from principle.

Ben in Oakland
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

Why, i just happened to write a letter to the editor last week opn this very same subject:

“The commercial supporting Prop. 8 complains about activist judges thwarting the will of the people. Activist judges appear to be those who disagree with the idea that only some people get equality before the law. Brown vs. Board of Education and Loving vs. Virginia were both landmark cases dealing with racial prejudice and decided by activist judges. The country is better off for them. If it were left to a popular vote back in the Fifties and Sixties, racial prejudice and segregation would still be the norm. It took court decisions and political leadership to move this country toward doing the right thing.

Defeating Prop. 8 is not only about marriage equality, it is also about doing the right thing and making our country a better place for all citizens. Prejudice and discrimination, whether because of race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other irrelevant factor, are always wrong. They diminish all of us, our laws, and our country.

Please vote no on Prop. 8

Eddie89
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

Ben – Awesome letter!!! You ROCK!

I believe that if a popular vote were held TODAY (2008) on racial prejudice and segragation, the polls would likely show a neck and neck race!!!


California – Vote “NO” on Prop. 8!
Arizona – Vote “NO” on Prop. 102! AGAIN!
Florida – Vote “NO” on Amendment 2!

Ben in Oakland
October 13th, 2008 | LINK

thank you, eddie. they didn’t publish it, unfortunately. i write a lot of letters.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.