Elana Kagan for Supreme Court

[Texan40]

Nicely stated. I submit that the evidence is quite strong that no one exclusively or predominantly attracted homosexually has ever been permanently enabled to change that attraction by either his own or a 'converion therapy "ex-gay' ministry's efforts. Bisexuals, yes; people who were the beneficiaries of direct divine intervention, yes; people who claimed to have been 'cured' for a period, maybe -- they may legitimately have had the equivalent of a remission as opposed to a cure, or they may have deluded themselves, and the evidence is not clear.

Now, as to acting on their desires, that's a different question. But unless you are one of those who refuses to admit that homosexuality as an orientation exists (and there are a few around, but I don't see you as one of them), the above summary reasonably closely reflects the state of the evidence at present.

Oh I fully recognize that people have "tastes" which are out of their control. Most people have a "type" that they feel naturally drawn to. If you want to call that sexual orientation then feel free. I just don't accept that the "orientation" is something that will exist in a vacuum for everyone. For some I'm sure it well could be, but not for all.

 

[Texan40]

Nope. It's called science-the empirical study of reality with structured research protocols.

And you can find a useful summary here of the evidence for a non-volitional source for sexual preference: Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences

If "research suggests" can pass for a scientific consensus then we are in trouble.

 

[Polycarp1]

that the government gives benefits for marriage at all is unconstitutional. That we should be expanding those benefits to homosexual "marriage" is just another step in the wrong direction (which is expanding the government).

I would love to see your arguments for your first sentence. As for the second, I agree the government does not by and large need to be expanded, I support equal treatment under law, and I would submitto you that if you don't want anyone sneering about your "so-called 'marriage'", the Golden Rule suggests you not do it about theirs.

 

[Texan40]

I would love to see your arguments for your first sentence. As for the second, I agree the government does not by and large need to be expanded, I support equal treatment under law, and I would submitto you that if you don't want anyone sneering about your "so-called 'marriage'", the Golden Rule suggests you not do it about theirs.

I don't sneer about anyone's marriage. It's a silly tactic to assume that everyone who doesn't support gay marriage "sneers at it." I can accept homosexuality as sexual immorality in the context of my morals and yet treat all gay people with the utmost personal respect. I don't have to accept everything an individual does to treat them as I expect to be treated. If gay people want to get married they can do that now if they can find a church to do so. They can love one another and live life as a married couple regardless of what society in general thinks about it. The "trouble" comes when the marriage won't be recognized by the State; but that's a legal issue, not a moral one. The constitution doesn't deal with social and moral issues but with keeping the State from intentionally disregarding or violating an individual's rights. If it is found that recognizing traditional marriage creates some real legal inequality for homosexuals then the recognition should be removed in whatever capacity will answer the inequality. The Constitution has no clause giving married couples any benefit above and beyond that of an individual. If the government has been doing so it needs to stop.

 

[Maren]

Recognition isn't what I find unconstitutional. Benefits or special treatment for being married (or for being in any special interest group) are not in the constitution.

Unfortunately, I can't see a way around recognizing marriage -- including special treatment. We would lose most of our career military personnel if the federal government refused to provide "benefits" for marriage. And it would require me to do some research but I'm guessing we'd find that the Founding Fathers intended that the federal government be able to provide "benefits" to families.

 

[Corey]

If "research suggests" can pass for a scientific consensus then we are in trouble.

You're looking for deductive "proof" in an inductive universe.

The best you can get from science is evidence that supports a specific hypothesis. However you can definitely reject any specific hypothesis.

 

[Maren]

that the government gives benefits for marriage at all is unconstitutional. That we should be expanding those benefits to homosexual "marriage" is just another step in the wrong direction (which is expanding the government).

I don't sneer about anyone's marriage. It's a silly tactic to assume that everyone who doesn't support gay marriage "sneers at it." I can accept homosexuality as sexual immorality in the context of my morals and yet treat all gay people with the utmost personal respect. I don't have to accept everything an individual does to treat them as I expect to be treated. If gay people want to get married they can do that now if they can find a church to do so. They can love one another and live life as a married couple regardless of what society in general thinks about it. The "trouble" comes when the marriage won't be recognized by the State; but that's a legal issue, not a moral one. The constitution doesn't deal with social and moral issues but with keeping the State from intentionally disregarding or violating an individual's rights. If it is found that recognizing traditional marriage creates some real legal inequality for homosexuals then the recognition should be removed in whatever capacity will answer the inequality. The Constitution has no clause giving married couples any benefit above and beyond that of an individual. If the government has been doing so it needs to stop.

I can see why Polycarp1 believed you were sneering at gay marriage. I had the same thought since you put the word marriage in quotes. So, if you didn't mean to "sneer" at it or imply that it isn't really marriage, what was your reasoning for putting it in quotes?

 

[Texan40]

I can see why Polycarp1 believed you were sneering at gay marriage. I had the same thought since you put the word marriage in quotes. So, if you didn't mean to "sneer" at it or imply that it isn't really marriage, what was your reasoning for putting it in quotes?

It is in quotes because in my opinion marriage is a man+woman union. I don't believe that 2 people of the same sex are "married" in a united covenant with God. It doesn't involve any sneering on my part, simply my belief. Is it somehow against the Golden Rule to obey semantics based on your own personal set of beliefs?

 

[Polycarp1]

It is in quotes because in my opinion marriage is a man+woman union. I don't believe that 2 people of the same sex are "married" in a united covenant with God. It doesn't involve any sneering on my part, simply my belief. Is it somehow against the Golden Rule to obey semantics based on your own personal set of beliefs?

I appreciate your answers. You were simply using the quotes as "That's what others call it though I disagree." Many of those who see gay marriages as invalid use the quotation marks to sneer at them though, so please forgive my assumption as to your motive.

 

[Parmenio]

It is in quotes because in my opinion marriage is a man+woman union. I don't believe that 2 people of the same sex are "married" in a united covenant with God. It doesn't involve any sneering on my part, simply my belief. Is it somehow against the Golden Rule to obey semantics based on your own personal set of beliefs?

While that may not be sneering it is at least as bad. Just like if someone considered you a "person". I've personally found that 100% of people agree with my stance on gov't recognition of homosexual marriage. Anyone who doesn't is, by definition, just a "person".

 

[Texan40]

While that may not be sneering it is at least as bad. Just like if someone considered you a "person". I've personally found that 100% of people agree with my stance on gov't recognition of homosexual marriage. Anyone who doesn't is, by definition, just a "person".

I know that my beliefs will bring about persecution from others. I'm fine with that.

 

[jayem]

Recognition isn't what I find unconstitutional. Benefits or special treatment for being married (or for being in any special interest group) are not in the constitution.

The only explicit Constitutional restrictions I recall on Congress's taxing power is that taxes must be uniform throughout the country; no taxes or duties can be assessed on items exported by the states; and direct taxes must be apportioned among the states. And the 16th Amendment abrogated that last restriction in the matter of income taxes. Otherwise, Congress has been free to include all kinds of special preferences and benefits in the Tax Code. So the law allows different tax rates for married couples filing jointly, and for widowed persons with dependents. And extra exemptions for people with children. I can see your point that these may violate the spirit of equal treatment under the law for all people. But they've never been formally declared unconstitutional. Until our entire taxing system is revised (which would have much merit) they're not going away.

 

[BotanicalBob]

Can anyone point me to the topic about Kagan, because I seem to be lost in a gay marriage debate.

 

[Texan40]

Can anyone point me to the topic about Kagan, because I seem to be lost in a gay marriage debate.

It always seems to come back to that, doesn't it? I mentioned judicial activism and this is where we ended up

 

[Polycarp1]

Can anyone point me to the topic about Kagan, because I seem to be lost in a gay marriage debate.

My fault. I used the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts as an example of a controversial decision employing judicial self-restraint that many instead call judicial activism. I specifically tried to head us off from a gay-marriage hijack in saying I was doing it -- but I cannot control what other members will say! My apologies to all.

Texan40. did you understand and agree with my post? Not the decision itself, of course -- I know your stance there -- but my considering it judicial self-restraint, not judicial activism?

 

[Texan40]

My fault. I used the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts as an example of a controversial decision employing judicial self-restraint that many instead call judicial activism. I specifically tried to head us off from a gay-marriage hijack in saying I was doing it -- but I cannot control what other members will say! My apologies to all.

Texan40. did you understand and agree with my post? Not the decision itself, of course -- I know your stance there -- but my considering it judicial self-restraint, not judicial activism?

Absolutely. In that instance the judicial body left the legislative body of the state have a chance to deal with the situation before any legal decisions were remanded. I totally agree with that assessment, and that it was the correct thing for them to do.

 

[Greatcloud]

I am totally opposed to Obamas choice for Supreme court Justice. I want to go on record in saying that I oppose her. She is a liberal a homosexual a bad judge as far as, is concerned, her past judgements. I don't like her at all.

 

[lux et lex]

I don't think she's pro choice enough.

 

[Crusader05]

I am totally opposed to Obamas choice for Supreme court Justice. I want to go on record in saying that I oppose her. She is a liberal a homosexual a bad judge as far as, is concerned, her past judgements. I don't like her at all.

Wow, wrong on so many levels. First, she is not gay and even if she was why would it matter?

Second, she has never been a judge and therefore hasn't issued any judgements. She has been a lawyer, dean of Harvard Law School and Solicitor General.

 

[ChavaK]

She has no judicial experience, and is way too liberal for my taste.
And a hypocrite.
She banned the military from Harvard, but not congress and Clinton
who were the ones that enacted the "don't ask don't tell" policy.
The military was simply doing what it was told to do by Clinton
and congress. If she had a beef, it was with them, not the military.