poetsheart

It's not a matter of changing The Constitution. It's a matter of interpreting the existing Constitution so as to insure (once again) that the rights of the minority aren't trampled by the majority. What would have to be changed in our Constitution to "authorize" homosexual marriage, razorsharp? Does it currently prohibit homosexual marriage? Show me where. Did the SCOTUS in the case of Loving vs Virginia change the Constitution to allow for interracial marriage, or did it merely uphold the ideal of equal protection as outlined in The Constitution? It always amazes me that those whose rights are never questioned in this country think they should vote to make those same rights optional for others

nbachris2788

Razorsharp,

There's nothing in the US Constitution that bans gay marriage, and nothing would need to be changed in order to accommodate it.

The FMA hullaballoo happened BECAUSE there was no specific definition of marriage in the Constitution, and conservatives wanted to awkwardly force it in there.

cartera45

No need at all to change the Constitution.

xiggi

Oh DonnaL, you really are hilarious. And as judgmental as confused as ever, and especially confused about what I might have written on your favorite topics.

DonnaL

I'm not the least bit confused, Xiggi, and never have been. The very fact that you use that word (which has a very specific meaning in certain circles when applied to certain people) is simply further evidence of exactly what you are. The idea that you would presume to condescend to me is the only thing that's "hilarious" here. You are supremely unqualified to do so.

catahoula

Is this really how this is viewed by the left-leaning?

No tolerance for views (expressed by ballot) that run counter to your own?

cartera45

I have never heard an argument against same sex marriage that I did not think was based in bigotry.

nbachris2788

Catahoula said:

I think Indian food is the best in the world. You might think that Italian food is better. I wouldn't call you a bigot solely based on the fact that you disagree with me. Both of our viewpoints are valid and founded upon reasonable points.

I find it interesting how right-wingers, the ones who are most likely to talk about how some cultures (namely theirs) is superior to others, are the ones who immediately stake the position of all viewpoints of having equal validity whenever their backwards views are challenged.

The left accepts all views that are founded upon reasonable points. The left is intolerant of views that are founded on faulty principles. The left, and an increasing number on the right, believe that gay marriage is founded upon reasonable points and opposed only by unreasonable points. That is why we are "intolerant" of opposition to it.

xiggi

I have no idea what this "very specific meaning in certain circles when applied to certain people." might mean. What certain circles and what certain people are those?

You're only confirming why I adorned you with the labels of judgmental and confused. Feel free to add obnoxious to the list.

razorsharp

When the equal protection amendment was passed, homosexuality was criminalized in most states. Homosexuals were considered to be engaging in crimes against nature. The idea that the equal protection clause now somehow requires homosexual marriage is simply lunacy. If judges now interpret the equal protection clause to require homosexual marriage, they are legislating not interpreting because there is no interpretation of existing law that would justify homosexual marriage under the Constitution. Marriage has been and should remain largely a state preference because the US constitution does not define marriage. The constitution may address behavior that impacts marriage (e.g. prohibiting states from discriminating based on race within the context of marriage) but as to homosexuality, the US constitution is silent.

cartera45

The Constitution is dead. Long live the Constitution!

kluge

I have surprisingly little tolerance for people who use their power to deny to others rights that they themselves enjoy, simply because the others are different from the majority. I have little tolerance for the Taliban, the Klan, and Fred Phelps. I guess that's just a "liberal" failing.

nbachris2788

Isn't it tiring to encounter conservatives who time and time again either willfully or mistakenly misinterpret the idea of open-mindedness of liberalism?

The idea that they think opposing a bigoted idea like being against gay marriage is somehow a contradiction of liberal beliefs of open-mindedness can only mean two things:

1) They are sincerely mistaken about the tenets of open-mindedness or, that rather awful term, "tolerance" in liberalism. Liberals do not blindly accept any idea as being worthy of respect. Instead, they are willing to be respectful of all ideas that have merit founded upon fair and reasonable premises. They are also fiercely unwilling to dismiss or denigrate ideas simply solely based on the fact that they may be different or alien. However, different or alien ideas may be rejected if they fail to be based on reasonable and fair premises.

2) Or perhaps these conservatives sincerely see a perfect equivalency in being tolerant of anti-gay marriage as being tolerant OF gay marriage. Perhaps they think that being xenophobic is just as fair and reasonable as being open to other peoples and cultures. Therefore, they honestly cannot comprehend why a liberal who claims to be open minded would call being accepting of gay marriage unbigoted, while they call anti-gay marriage as bigoted. After all, aren't these pro-gay marriage people being bigots against cultural conservatives? This stance, of course, requires a childishly uninformed grasp of the concept of rights, fairness, the meaning of bigotry, etc.

DonnaL

And most states criminalized miscegenation when the 14th Amendment was passed as well.

But if those who wrote and passed the amendment (and the Bill of Rights itself) had intended it to have a narrow, frozen meaning limited forever to the protection of the specific classes they had in mind at that moment in time, they could easily have written it that way. They knew perfectly well how to write specific language. And were well aware that if they had named specific classes as the ones entitled to equal protection, the applicable legal maxims (such as exclusio unius, exclusio alterius) -- which haven't changed for centuries -- would strongly militate against interpreting the amendment to cover unnamed classes. But they didn't use specific, narrow classes. They didn't name any groups to be protected. Instead, they deliberately chose broad, entirely non-specific language. Unfortunately for those of you who would like to pretend differently.

As for those who expect liberal tolerance to extend to tolerance of intolerance itself, go read Karl Popper on the subject. I am perfectly willing to admit that I am intolerant of bigotry. And am quite judgmental of it, too. Xiggi's extremely foolish attempt to insult me by using that word notwithstanding. (He can go think up some different insults if he likes; I take being insulted by him as almost a compliment!)

catahoula

The capacity to have opinions, as diverse as they may be, are the one thing we all share.

In spite of your tendency to use irrelevant analogies, I'm with you so far.

I thought that "equal validity" thing was something liberals were better known for. Cultures, to be specific.

The "backward's" slur is simply opinion. See above.

The last, the one where you seem to be drifting off into extolling the virtue of percentage opinion:

You don't find that at odds with condemning the majority will of Iowa voters?