The Tyranny of the Majority

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Were I the owner or moderator of this site I'd have...

Ted,

I know.

Apparently there's a lot you would like to do to this poster and that.

But you are not owner or moderator of this site.

That being said, I find it instructive that George chides Equality for his ignorance of the sex lives of gay males - when Equality is a practitioner of homosexuality himself.

That's the problem in a nutshell.

I don't find this instructive at all, but I do find your analysis forced and twisted out of shape.

I don't need to come here and listen to well intentioned people who, out of sympathy for what they perceive as my "condition" join in chanting "gooble-gobble, gooble-gobble, one of them, one of them."

That's easy to cure.

Don't come here.

If you do insist on coming here, you will find well-intentioned people and some not so well-intentioned who are going to speak their mind--without intimidation. And that's the way it's going to stay.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Were I the owner or moderator of this site I'd have placed Equality on moderation for his "nigger" comments, so his "fag" post above would never even have made it to the screen.

That being said, I find it instructive that George chides Equality for his ignorance of the sex lives of gay males - when Equality is a practitioner of homosexuality himself.

That's the problem in a nutshell.

I chided Equality for his rhetoric. I took his remarks as the gay equivalent of his "nigger" remarks earlier. I didn't think he is black, nor did I think he is gay. I was frankly surprised to learn that I was wrong on the latter point.

Liberals and even people here simply assume that if you are homosexual you must be in favor of the gay agenda, and that if you speak out against the gay agenda, you simply cannot be homosexual.

I certainly don't assume this. While I was active in Californian libertarian circles for many years, many of the leading libertarian activists and writers were gay. They agreed with parts of the "gay agenda" and disagreed with other parts. I think a strong libertarian case can be made for two issues: gays in the military and gay marriage.

The reasons for scrapping the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy are, I think, pretty obvious. The issue of gay marriage is a bit more complicated. Ideally, the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and let it become a purely civil union. But as things now stand, to prevent gays from marrying is an overtly discriminatory policy. To discriminate in the private sector is one thing, but it should not be permitted in the governmental sphere.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

Were I the owner or moderator of this site I'd have...

Ted,

I know.

Apparently there's a lot you would like to do to this poster and that.

But you are not owner or moderator of this site.

That being said, I find it instructive that George chides Equality for his ignorance of the sex lives of gay males - when Equality is a practitioner of homosexuality himself.

That's the problem in a nutshell.

I don't find this instructive at all, but I do find your analysis forced and twisted out of shape.

I don't need to come here and listen to well intentioned people who, out of sympathy for what they perceive as my "condition" join in chanting "gooble-gobble, gooble-gobble, one of them, one of them."

That's easy to cure.

Don't come here.

If you do insist on coming here, you will find well-intentioned people and some not so well-intentioned who are going to speak their mind--without intimidation. And that's the way it's going to stay.

Michael

Am I not entitled to speak my mind without intimidation that I would have moderated Equality for his remarks?

Why the defensiveness? Are you expecting a coup? Who, exactly, is intimidating who here?

If you have actual arguments against my "twisted" views, let's hear them.

[kiaer.ts]

to prevent gays from marrying

This is a bizarre perversion of language. No person is prevented from getting married because he is gay. The government not providing you a certificate to reflect a private act is not the equivalent of its preventing you from acting. Government is the use of force. Either force will not be used regarding "gay marriage", in which case the idea of legal gay marriage is a farce, or it will be used, in which case, at whom will the guns be pointed? What's next, the legal right of nuns to marry the church? The purpose of government is not to issue vanity license plates.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Ted Keer

[George H. Smith]

to prevent gays from marrying

This is a bizarre perversion of language. No person is prevented from getting married because he is gay. The government not providing you a certificate to reflect a private act is not the equivalent of its preventing you from acting. Government is the use of force. Either force will not be used regarding "gay marriage", in which case the idea of legal gay marriage is a farce, or it will be used, in which case, at whom will the guns be pointed? What's next, the legal right of nuns to marry the church? The purpose of government is not to issue vanity license plates.

I can't make much sense of this.

A legally sanctioned marriage (one recognized by the state) carries certain legal rights regarding children, joint tax returns, hospital visitation privileges, end of life decisions, etc. So what is your point? That gays should not care about such matters?

Ghs

[Martin Radwin]

to prevent gays from marrying

This is a bizarre perversion of language. No person is prevented from getting married because he is gay. The government not providing you a certificate to reflect a private act is not the equivalent of its preventing you from acting. Government is the use of force. Either force will not be used regarding "gay marriage", in which case the idea of legal gay marriage is a farce, or it will be used, in which case, at whom will the guns be pointed? What's next, the legal right of nuns to marry the church? The purpose of government is not to issue vanity license plates.

So you favor the immediate abolition of government established heterosexual marriage, right? Because government is the use of force, and should not be issuing certificates to reflect a private act. Since the purpose of government is not to issue vanity license plates, government established heterosexual marriage should be abolished. Right?

Martin

[Mikee]

I don't know why it's so difficult to understand what Ted is saying. If you are not a collectivist the purpose of government is not social engineering.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Am I not entitled to speak my mind without intimidation that I would have moderated Equality for his remarks?

Why the defensiveness? Are you expecting a coup? Who, exactly, is intimidating who here?

If you have actual arguments against my "twisted" views, let's hear them.

Ted,

To answer:

1. You are entitled. I have not prohibited you from that.

You are not entitled, however, to agreement from anyone. You have to earn that through reasoned discussion, not just bullying ("I would have done this-or-that to so-and-so.") And I am equally entitled to point this out.

2. I'm not being defensive. I am trying to keep a lid on your nastiness. When you can't manage to control it and start getting bossy and presumptuous, it poisons the atmosphere. I have a forum to run--and that includes keeping the air clear for a lot more people than just you. I have already started receiving offline complaints about the nastiness of this gay marriage debate in general (not just your nastiness, either). I suggest civility and refrain from bullying, but that is your choice. My choice is setting the threshold of flexibility for incivility and bullying that will be tolerated on this forum.

3. I'll start with one: your boneheaded idea that "the problem in a nutshell" was that George was using "some sort of real entity," "a modern social construct with identity politics written all over it" in making a simple mistake. That's not even worth defending, so I'll just let George's own words say it. Here is what he said: "I certainly don't assume this."

I'll let you work out the details as to how and why he could make that mistake (which, incidentally, I made myself before I checked). I suggest starting with common sense, but you choose your own thinking processes.

I don't have all day for this nitpicking dueling stuff, so I wlll just leave it where I left it.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

I don't know why it's so difficult to understand what Ted is saying. If you are not a collectivist the purpose of government is not social engineering.

In my first post I called for the separation of marriage and the state. But until then, what? Suppose the state refused to recognize interracial marriages? Or suppose it recognized marriages between Republicans but not Democrats? Or marriages only among Christians? Would you simply reply, "Well, we don't want the state involved in marriage at all, so none of the above concerns us"?

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't know why it's so difficult to understand what Ted is saying. If you are not a collectivist the purpose of government is not social engineering.

Mike,

Do you really think people around here hold that the purpose of government is social engineering? With the exception of the harsher Rand critics, I can't think of one.

The problem arises when two conflicting ideas collide. You have to prioritize and it can get complicated.

But one thing is simple. You can make the epistemological mistake of applying "all-or-nothing" thinking to a context that is not "all-or-nothing"--the context being another person's mind.

I'll try to be clearer and use this gay marriage issue as an example.

Some people think that the government is too present in our lives and piling other people onto the existing laws--like allowing gays to marry--will simply increase the toxic reach of the government.

Other people think that people should be treated equally under the law and allowing some individuals to receive default legal protections while excluding others--like allowing heterosexual marriages to be governed by family law and homosexual unions (marriage-like unions) to stand outside--is a form of granting ruling privileges to the included people.

So who's right?

Both are right.

That makes the issue complicated. But people get so focused on one negative over the other as the greater evil that--when they encounter disagreement--they start accusing others of outright promoting their chosen greater evil.

This is a wrong thinking method.

Can anyone look at someone like George Smith and--in good conscience--imagine that he wants to promote collectivism enforced through government tyranny? There comes a point where it just gets ridiculous.

When people back up and start throwing around gross insults about a person for his/her honest thinking, they don't convince anyone. They certainly don't prompt a person to think. All they do is get that person--and most readers--mad at them, or disappointed and/or confused at best.

Unfortunately. the source of this behavior in the Objectivist world was Rand herself. Some Objectivists and Objectivism-friendly folks think that her general nastiness when she held an unfair and lopsided interpretation of the views of someone is a trait to be admired and emulated. I hold it is not.

Rand's ideas are spreading because they are good ideas. I believe they would spread faster if people would cut this crap out. It is actually one of the obstacles--right alongside collectivism.

I call it bullying.

You are supposed to be nasty to bullies when they get nasty, not to good people who simply disagree with you or don't understand something.

Michael

[Mikee]

I don't know why it's so difficult to understand what Ted is saying. If you are not a collectivist the purpose of government is not social engineering.

In my first post I called for the separation of marriage and the state. But until then, what? Suppose the state refused to recognize interracial marriages? Or suppose it recognized marriages between Republicans but not Democrats? Or marriages only among Christians? Would you simply reply, "Well, we don't want the state involved in marriage at all, so none of the above concerns us"?

Ghs

You don't unravel a Gordian knot by adding more knots. The argument is about gay marriage. It sounds like you are trying to turn the "first they came for the Jews...." argument on its head. Ted made a very good argument that adult adoption and other legal instruments exist that allow gay partners to enjoy the privileges of being married. So, the "right" of "gay marriage" is simply cosmetic, another government intrusion and an insult to individuals. Sounds right to me.

[George H. Smith]

I don't know why it's so difficult to understand what Ted is saying. If you are not a collectivist the purpose of government is not social engineering.

In my first post I called for the separation of marriage and the state. But until then, what? Suppose the state refused to recognize interracial marriages? Or suppose it recognized marriages between Republicans but not Democrats? Or marriages only among Christians? Would you simply reply, "Well, we don't want the state involved in marriage at all, so none of the above concerns us"?

Ghs

You don't unravel a Gordian knot by adding more knots. The argument is about gay marriage. It sounds like you are trying to turn the "first they came for the Jews...." argument on its head. Ted made a very good argument that adult adoption and other legal instruments exist that allow gay partners to enjoy the privileges of being married. So, the "right" of "gay marriage" is simply cosmetic, another government intrusion and an insult to individuals. Sounds right to me.

I am not an attorney, much less an expert on family law, so I cannot say which legal rights are denied to gays and which are not. (I assume this varies from state to state.) But I remain skeptical about the claim that marriage is merely "cosmetic" and carries no legal privileges that cannot otherwise be attained. But even if this is true, the question remains of why gays should be required to make special efforts and spend money (e.g., by hiring an attorney) to gain rights that straights can acquire via marriage.

There is a very important libertarian principle involved here, namely, equality under the law. This principle causes problems for libertarians when the law in question includes unjust privileges. Suppose, for example, that a law were passed declaring that only African-Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities are eligible for welfare; whites need not apply.

Would libertarians applaud this law on the ground that it drastically reduces the number of welfare recipients, even though it is explicitly racist? I hope not.

Or suppose Congress passed a law declaring that all federal employees shall be exempt from income taxes. Would libertarians rejoice in this supposed rolling back of the power of government? Again, I hope not. This kind of selective enforcement is anathema to the notion of equality under the law, and it would lead to an even worse political aristocracy than we have now.

In such cases libertarians should follow the counsel of Ayn Rand: "It is proper to forbid all discrimination in government-owned facilities and establishments: the government has no right to discriminate against any citizens." ("Racism," in VOS.)

In matters of gay marriage and similar problems, libertarians can defend equality under the law while also calling for the repeal of all unjust privileges and/or liabilities that a given institution or law entails.

I concede that this principle is far from clear-cut, at least in some applications. For example, if the government began imprisoning nonviolent political dissidents on the right, libertarians would not argue that equality under the law demands that radical leftists be imprisoned as well. I would be willing to discuss this kind of example in more detail, if someone is interested.

Meanwhile, if you wish to comment further, please address some of my examples. No progress will be made in this discussion unless the principles involved are extended beyond the single issue of gay marriage.

Ghs

[Guyau]

.

Mikee, you wrote in #36: “Ted made a very good argument that adult adoption and other legal instruments exist that allow gay partners to enjoy the privileges of being married. So, the "right" of "gay marriage" is simply cosmetic, another government intrusion and an insult to individuals.”

I gather you are from New Zealand. So I expect you are not familiar with such particulars of American law. Ted’s representations of our existing law are hazy.

The requirements for who may be adopted in my State precludes mutual adoption. Read the eligibility requirements, and think it through. Etc., etc.

Laws that confer legal powers to individual citizens (such as the power to make a will or to assign medical power of attorney) are not fundamentally privileges conferred by government. They are rights that are properly recognized by government.

The reason some States were still resisting the legalization of sexual acts characteristic of same-sex partners right up to the US Supreme Court decision of 2003 was to use the power of law to proclaim their (incorrect) morals. They continue to do what they can along those lines.

[rodney203]

George Smith posted:

"In my first post I called for the separation of marriage and the state. But until then, what? Suppose the state refused to recognize interracial marriages? Or suppose it recognized marriages between Republicans but not Democrats? Or marriages only among Christians? Would you simply reply, "Well, we don't want the state involved in marriage at all, so none of the above concerns us"?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First George, I agree with separation of marriage and state.

You made a good point up there and it made me think. My concern is this: Granting marriage privileges to one group, then another, shrinks the size of the remaining persecuted group, and seems to do nothing to move toward separation of marriage and state. It seems to me that marriage is mostly access to special treatment and your argument seems to have more compassion for those who want the special treatment than for those who don't want it, but would rather just get their rights. Does decreasing the number of victims improve the morality of the matter, or worsen it?

[RightJungle]

Whoever said that you shoudn't discuss sex, politics, or religion, just might have had something there. I sure didn't expect my topic to raise so much dust. I do, however, appreciate the passion with which all of the commentators have addressed the meaning that my post had for them. And thank you, Michael, for stepping in and calming the discussion down.

I should have been more clear about what was motivating me to seek Objectivist opinions on the topic. The two issues that have been bothering me for the last several months of the political battles waging here in Iowa were:

(1) Laws that apply to some people, but not to others of apparently similar circumstances,(Rodney203 seems to have made it clear that the government involvement itself is at the root of the problem, but...).

(2) The uproar among Tea Party and Republican Party members over "activist judges." I had read the Iowa Supreme Court decision about the "marriage protection" act that was passed by the state legislature, and I couldn't find something that looked like activism in their decision. I don't understand how judges at any level can be "activist judges". What does that mean they do? It also worries me that the legal process of ensuring that the judges in Iowa continue to do their job well is being decided by a simple majority vote every so many years. Is there a deeper issue that I am missing?

Those who are trying to block gay marriage are demanding that the state legislature let the people of Iowa vote (the issue is called Let Us Vote (LUV)). I get nervous about democratic voting being applied to anything more important that where we go for lunch. This cry to Let Us Vote sounds like Let Us Dictate. Is there something here that I'm not understanding? To confuse the issue even more, the majority leader in the legislature is refusing to let the request to vote on the marriage issue come to a vote in the legislature and is providing no explanation of his decision process.

Ultimately my thinking turns to the fear that our state government will start violating my rights, even more than they already do, because they've gotten away with violating the rights of those gay and lesbian couples who want to marry each other. I've spent enough time in Tara Smith's Moral Rights and Political Freedom, as well as in the world, to come to honestly believe that my love of Liberty requires that I love the Liberty of every individal on the face of the earth, within the normal restriction of "as long as they do not violate the rights of others." In addition, the implications regarding the public's judgement of the supreme court members seem to threaten my ability to trust that the best available judges are being appointed or that they are able to be true to their own integrity in the face of such a threat.

I know that terrorism and economic collapse carry way more weight in the line up of the problems facing us, but this state level conflict contains the seeds of what is at the root of even the worst of our problems - namely that I (and possibly others) am not thinking clearly enough about it. That is why I bring these things to the Objectivist forum. I know that all of you are thinking at your own unique level and that that can be helpful to me.

[rodney203]

This is an added comment to something George Smith posted.

Just as we believe in separation of marriage and state, so we believe in separation of school and state. However, since the correct solution for education is not at hand, and will not be for the foreseeable future, some people propose "voucher" programs as a method to make matters more "fair". But more fair for whom? Under a voucher system, parents who have a child in a public school are given money to take their children out of that school. Where does this money come from? Is it picked from trees? No; it comes from the pockets of people with NO children, who are, in effect, taxed to pay for two school systems when they have kids in neither. This is more fair? This will somehow encourage society toward the correct solution of all private schools? I don't see how.

Likewise, someone please tell me how granting marriage to more special interest groups will bring us closer to the right goal.

[kiaer.ts]

This is an added comment to something George Smith posted.

Just as we believe in separation of marriage and state, so we believe in separation of school and state. However, since the correct solution for education is not at hand, and will not be for the foreseeable future, some people propose "voucher" programs as a method to make matters more "fair". But more fair for whom? Under a voucher system, parents who have a child in a public school are given money to take their children out of that school. Where does this money come from? Is it picked from trees? No; it comes from the pockets of people with NO children, who are, in effect, taxed to pay for two school systems when they have kids in neither. This is more fair? This will somehow encourage society toward the correct solution of all private schools? I don't see how.

Likewise, someone please tell me how granting marriage to more special interest groups will bring us closer to the right goal.

The issue is not "granting marriage." Government does not grant marriage. It uses guns to force people do do things. The only purpose of this farce is to use guns against private third parties in order to establish a social agenda.

[George H. Smith]

This is an added comment to something George Smith posted.

Just as we believe in separation of marriage and state, so we believe in separation of school and state. However, since the correct solution for education is not at hand, and will not be for the foreseeable future, some people propose "voucher" programs as a method to make matters more "fair". But more fair for whom? Under a voucher system, parents who have a child in a public school are given money to take their children out of that school. Where does this money come from? Is it picked from trees? No; it comes from the pockets of people with NO children, who are, in effect, taxed to pay for two school systems when they have kids in neither. This is more fair? This will somehow encourage society toward the correct solution of all private schools? I don't see how.

Likewise, someone please tell me how granting marriage to more special interest groups will bring us closer to the right goal.

What are the special privileges of marriage that you believe would not exist in private civil unions?

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

This is an added comment to something George Smith posted.

Just as we believe in separation of marriage and state, so we believe in separation of school and state. However, since the correct solution for education is not at hand, and will not be for the foreseeable future, some people propose "voucher" programs as a method to make matters more "fair". But more fair for whom? Under a voucher system, parents who have a child in a public school are given money to take their children out of that school. Where does this money come from? Is it picked from trees? No; it comes from the pockets of people with NO children, who are, in effect, taxed to pay for two school systems when they have kids in neither. This is more fair? This will somehow encourage society toward the correct solution of all private schools? I don't see how.

Likewise, someone please tell me how granting marriage to more special interest groups will bring us closer to the right goal.

What are the special privileges of marriage that you believe would not exist in private civil unions?

Ghs

You don't want to define your terms, do you?

No one has answered why, other than for a sickening and unexamined patronizing sort of pity for a class implicitly viewed as victims, minarchists should be so trigger happy to use guns here to do what, other than punish non-consenting landlords and insurers? What is the actual problem that needs solving?

The rights that need protecting are those of next of kin, not child support. Assigning next of kin has nothing to do with a legal institution meant to codify before the fact rights of parenthood and the support of dependent mothers. I should have the right to adopt or be designated by any person, married or not, as next of kin. It's called adoption.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Ted Keer

[George H. Smith]

This is an added comment to something George Smith posted.

Just as we believe in separation of marriage and state, so we believe in separation of school and state. However, since the correct solution for education is not at hand, and will not be for the foreseeable future, some people propose "voucher" programs as a method to make matters more "fair". But more fair for whom? Under a voucher system, parents who have a child in a public school are given money to take their children out of that school. Where does this money come from? Is it picked from trees? No; it comes from the pockets of people with NO children, who are, in effect, taxed to pay for two school systems when they have kids in neither. This is more fair? This will somehow encourage society toward the correct solution of all private schools? I don't see how.

Likewise, someone please tell me how granting marriage to more special interest groups will bring us closer to the right goal.

What are the special privileges of marriage that you believe would not exist in private civil unions?

Ghs

You don't want to define your terms, George.

The rights that need protecting are those of next of kin. Assigning next of kin has nothing to do with getting married. I should have the right to adopt or be designated by any person, married or not, as next of kin. It's called adoption.

I don't follow this at all. I believe you are now free to designate anyone as your next of kin, regardless of whether you are married or not.

I thought the point of the anti-gay marriage argument is that libertarians should not seek to extend the special privileges granted by a state-sanctioned institution -- i.e., privileges that would not exist with a separation of marriage and state -- to more people. So what are those special privileges? In other words, in what respects is the libertarian advocate of gay marriage aiding and abetting the unjust powers of government?

I am not asking a rhetorical question in order to score polemical points. This is a sincere question.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

This is an added comment to something George Smith posted.

Just as we believe in separation of marriage and state, so we believe in separation of school and state. However, since the correct solution for education is not at hand, and will not be for the foreseeable future, some people propose "voucher" programs as a method to make matters more "fair". But more fair for whom? Under a voucher system, parents who have a child in a public school are given money to take their children out of that school. Where does this money come from? Is it picked from trees? No; it comes from the pockets of people with NO children, who are, in effect, taxed to pay for two school systems when they have kids in neither. This is more fair? This will somehow encourage society toward the correct solution of all private schools? I don't see how.

Likewise, someone please tell me how granting marriage to more special interest groups will bring us closer to the right goal.

The voucher programs that I am familiar with do not entail double-taxation, if that is what you were getting at. Rather, voucher funds are diverted from public school funds that already exist.

Generally speaking, tax credits for sending your child to a private school are preferable to vouchers. A major problem with both schemes is that they may cause the government to exercise more control over private schools than it already does. But if parents could get tax credits for, say, home schooling, that would be a good thing, in my judgment.

I am about as radical as they come when it comes to opposing unjust government programs. But I also understand that the "abolition or nothing" approach will rarely work, given the current state of public opinion. One great advantage of introducing some competition into the public school system, even if it is far from ideal, is that the superior results will provide a concrete demonstration of the benefits of competition. For most people, practical demonstrations are far more persuasive than theoretical arguments.

Ghs

[Martin Radwin]

This is an added comment to something George Smith posted.

Just as we believe in separation of marriage and state, so we believe in separation of school and state. However, since the correct solution for education is not at hand, and will not be for the foreseeable future, some people propose "voucher" programs as a method to make matters more "fair". But more fair for whom? Under a voucher system, parents who have a child in a public school are given money to take their children out of that school. Where does this money come from? Is it picked from trees? No; it comes from the pockets of people with NO children, who are, in effect, taxed to pay for two school systems when they have kids in neither. This is more fair? This will somehow encourage society toward the correct solution of all private schools? I don't see how.

Likewise, someone please tell me how granting marriage to more special interest groups will bring us closer to the right goal.

The issue is not "granting marriage." Government does not grant marriage. It uses guns to force people do do things. The only purpose of this farce is to use guns against private third parties in order to establish a social agenda.

So, since government does not grant marriage but instead uses guns to force people to do things, do you favor the immediate abolition of government granted heterosexual marriage? I posed this question to you in a previous post, and you never answered it. Since you have repeatedly railed against government granted homosexual marriage but have never spoken out against government granted heterosexual marriage (at least, I've never heard you speak out against the latter), it seems reasonable to extrapolate that you oppose the former but not the latter. Since you've stated that government granted marriage is somehow the equivalent of using guns against private third parties, your support of government granted heterosexual marriage would imply that you have no problem with government using guns against private third parties in support of heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples.

In fact, government granted marriage by itself does not involve use of government force against anyone. Rather, it is a basket of contractual rights granted to the couple, such as next of kin, inheritance, child custody, right of hospital visitation, right not to testify against ones spouse in court, right to eventually get permanent resident status for a non U.S. citizen whom one marries, etc. None of these contractual rights involves the use of force against anyone. They are contractual rights that could mostly be established individually via written contracts, probably with the assistance of an attorney. Government granted marriage is simply a convenient way of granting this basket of rights automatically without having to hire an attorney to write individual contracts to establish them.

Your previous examples of government use of force were related to non-discrimination laws, which force people to associate with other people against their will, such as in hiring, renting, etc. But these laws are conceptually and legally distinct from marriage laws. It's possible to have legal marriage laws but no non-discrimination laws, such that, for example, homosexuals can legally marry, but this gives them no special privilege against private discrimination. Similarly, it's possible to not have legal marriage for homosexuals but to still have laws against private discrimination against them. Insofar as one is against laws forcing people to associate with others against their will, one should oppose such non-discrimination laws. But this has nothing to do with marriage laws.

Martin

[RightJungle]

AHA! I'm not the only one wondering about how a judge becomes an "activist" and "legislates from the bench." Here is a link to another person asking (and answering) those questions, too.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080515135808AAchAnw

I don't feel so dumb now. Not really smart - but not so dumb either.

[George H. Smith]

AHA! I'm not the only one wondering about how a judge becomes an "activist" and "legislates from the bench." Here is a link to another person asking (and answering) those questions, too.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080515135808AAchAnw

I don't feel so dumb now. Not really smart - but not so dumb either.

No judge, whether liberal or conservative, dare interpret the U.S. Constitution along strict constructionist lines. To do this consistently would reduce the size of the federal government to a cipher, compared to what we have now. Hence whether or not a given judge qualifies as an "activist" depends on whose ox is getting gored.

You seem like a smart lady to me, Mary. You should post more often.

Ghs

[equality72521]

Here in the US the fag agenda is being pushed heavy in schools, children are being taught that homosexuality is normal, they are being brainwashed. There is a difference between tolerance and brainwashing and the fags in this country (which are a type of homosexuals) are assaulting heterosexuality, they are assaulting masculinity, they are assaulting peoples values. I do not agree with conservatives, I think they are irrational and inconsistent however they have a right to teach their children as they see fit. Gay marriage is one method of normalizing fagitry.

Dude, you need to get laid, and to get your snout out of other people's crotches.

The paragraph above sounds like it came from someone who loathes the very notion of homosexual activity. This rhetoric is ugly, brother, and only serves ugly ends. Please turn down the knobs on this kind of wordsmithery.

William,

When minimum wage was first brought into existence in the USA there were people who said that it would cause job loss. The minimum wage did not immediately lay off thousands of people. What places like hotels who could not afford to pay people like elevator operators did was to put in elevators that did not need those operators. You say there has not been a sudden collapse of civilization. True, the question however is what will things be like in 10-15 years? open your sight not just to the short term but to the long term as well.