tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.comments2019-11-17T07:39:56.936-08:00The Town Crierpaulbenedicthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708124992338283169noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-62768621590405123722010-03-14T14:05:26.269-07:002010-03-14T14:05:26.269-07:00Hello there everybody, I just registered on this e...Hello there everybody, I just registered on this excellent community forum and wished to say gday! Have a terrific day!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-78279563928662298002008-12-21T23:23:00.000-08:002008-12-21T23:23:00.000-08:00The comment on the opposition to gay marriage, as ...The comment on the opposition to gay marriage, as alone the reason for opposition to the Pastor, is the point of this article. <BR/><BR/>The odd comparisons you mention are off my radar; however, FOX ran an obscure piece of tape in which the Pastor, in talking about marriage, likened some of these things. <BR/><BR/>For the record, in the context of this blog, I do not oppose in principle, civil unions. I do oppose groups that demand others lie for them by pretending folks who can never really be married are married. Any who inist upon this absurtity, whether they be gay or not, are self-absorbed... as is detailed above.paulbenedicthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06708124992338283169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-58412584432023690962008-12-21T12:34:00.000-08:002008-12-21T12:34:00.000-08:00He has called us repatedly on par with pedophiles ...He has called us repatedly on par with pedophiles and bestiality and incest.<BR/><BR/>tell me again how our intolerance of his intolerance is bad?<BR/><BR/>In the 50's and the 60's they said the same things... "unnatural" "offensive"..."not God's Plan"..."8000 years of social norm and the Bible supporting it...can't be wrong..." "weakening society and the genetic rule" <BR/>on par with "bestiality" "pedophilia" and "incest"<BR/><BR/>Only they were talking about interracial marriage and relations... you know... as Barack's mother had to walk home at night in neighborhoods that may have bought into that strongly.<BR/><BR/>Tell me again your point.Beohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00858122408226045992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-18011680488702920842008-11-12T18:18:00.000-08:002008-11-12T18:18:00.000-08:00Good Luck on the Bar!!! How exciting. I'm looking ...Good Luck on the Bar!!! How exciting. I'm looking into applying for law school. <BR/><BR/>I've always wanted to go and now that I'm all fired up over this prop 8 stuff I definitely think it's time. <BR/><BR/>I posted a link on my site to this recall petition last week and I got a dated response too. I hope they are still doing something with it. I haven't been able to find much info about recall efforts, just that they are probably going to happen. I'll keep updating my blog if I find any info.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15886281110206546705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-67804215453203214312008-11-11T16:35:00.000-08:002008-11-11T16:35:00.000-08:00Hi Mikken,Thanks... I found this petition website ...Hi Mikken,<BR/><BR/>Thanks... I found this petition website on the recall of Judge George: http://www.rongeorgerecall.com/petition.php<BR/><BR/>I received an automated response that seemed pretty dated. <BR/><BR/>I slept at a Holiday Inn last night... I'm ready for the bar exam.paulbenedicthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06708124992338283169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-11799689384515318822008-11-11T14:47:00.000-08:002008-11-11T14:47:00.000-08:00Thanks for commenting on my blog. Your blog looks...Thanks for commenting on my blog. Your blog looks great! I just wanted to say hi. I'm I'm excited to read your posts. Are you an attorney? <BR/><BR/>I hope we can get these judges recalled. <BR/><BR/>ivoteyesonprop8.wordpress.com<BR/><BR/>~MikkenAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15886281110206546705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-1715912818679406722008-11-10T15:36:00.000-08:002008-11-10T15:36:00.000-08:00Good for people to know.Good for people to know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-54861102964297410422008-09-20T19:08:00.000-07:002008-09-20T19:08:00.000-07:00Howdy Sapphocrat,Wasn't Sappho part of a polytheis...Howdy Sapphocrat,<BR/><BR/>Wasn't Sappho part of a polytheistic society that believed that the victor named the gods? Thats why Apphrodite became Venus?<BR/><BR/>Anyhow, you prove my point. There is obviously a direct conflict between religious liberty and many of those who oppose Proposition 8. Americans should consider this choice at the ballot box.paulbenedicthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06708124992338283169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-76512984046232585952008-09-20T16:04:00.000-07:002008-09-20T16:04:00.000-07:00It's really very simple: How can you expect me to ...It's really very simple: <BR/><BR/>How can you expect me to respect your religious beliefs and defend to the death your right to worship and speak as you like, when you are attempting to force me to live by your beliefs? <BR/><BR/>Those who support Proposition 8 believe respect is a one-way street. <BR/><BR/>It is not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-44045019151190507502008-08-17T10:02:00.000-07:002008-08-17T10:02:00.000-07:00Hey Robert,It would be OK with me if you left reli...Hey Robert,<BR/><BR/>It would be OK with me if you left religion out of this discussion entirely. There are, I am told, many homosexuals who take religion seriously. My ideas about government are not based on religion. They are based on the beliefs the founding fathers held to be self-evident. I find those beliefs practically beneficial, eminently reasonable, and a sufficient explanation to all who would be held my friends in peace.<BR/><BR/>Religion as an inalienable right is a very important point to discuss. People choose their religions... To some it is extremely public (I actually like religions like this better) to others religions are more "personal." Some religions include "secret" rites and stuff...<BR/><BR/>I’ve posted a bunch of blogs on this stuff. Here are a summary of some of the points from my blog “Dehumanizing Marriage” especially.<BR/><BR/>Anyhow, what people are includes the ability to choose religious beliefs. Since that ability does not come from government, that ability to choose, that liberty is protected. Self-defense is also a choice and an ability that is part of what we are as people. This liberty, too, exists, then, as an inalienable right that governments, legitimate governments, ought to protect. <BR/><BR/>The "right to marry" is said by the California Court (and other state courts) to be "implied" by the language of the California Constitution. It was first ruled on in a case concerning interracial marriage back in the 1940's.<BR/><BR/>It's an interesting question. If one believes that marriage is a religious sacrament, then there is always a third person that authenticates that marriage. Hence, marriage exists after society and governments and is not an inalienable right.<BR/><BR/>I agree with the California court. It seems that a man and a woman can get married without anyone but heaven's blessings. This gender positive commitment between two people is an ability native to what we are as people. It is prior to government. Hence, all legitimate governments must recognize and protect this inalienable right. <BR/><BR/>If you envision a government that does not do this, your vision of government is illegitimate.<BR/><BR/>I am interested in your personal definition of marriage. I think you might be surprised to learn that the Supreme Court of California let you down also.paulbenedicthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06708124992338283169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-1684502563502799592008-08-16T22:19:00.000-07:002008-08-16T22:19:00.000-07:00"A person's religion, like his or her sexual orien..."A person's religion, like his or her sexual orientation, is a very personal and important self-defining characteristic". As I cannot understand your religion, you cannot understand my sexual orientation. We are both citizens. If I define marriage differently than you why should your definition be "more" correct than mine in the pursuit of happiness or equality under the law. Your religion includes the unfortunate supposition that I am somehow morally inferior to you and should not have the same rights in my pursuit of equal treatment in civil marriage. I cannot argue such a position as it is bound within the fabric of your own moral interpretation of existence. Race and gender are not "rights' as you indicate...they are facts. Religion and sexual orientation are "rights" as they can both be "changed" by self identification...just as I could be a raging homo and call myself "straight" and you could be an atheist and call yourself "christian". If my "religion" indicated the necessity for same sex marriage would I then have the right to marry? You prefer to offer up gay sexual orientation as a disability of sorts which requires accommodation. To someone who "identifies" as gay, this position sounds absurdroberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01321061879065438857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-60876516842468875872008-08-16T11:51:00.000-07:002008-08-16T11:51:00.000-07:00Hi Robert,It's my contention that race, religion a...Hi Robert,<BR/><BR/>It's my contention that race, religion and gender are rights all contained in the language of the Declaration of Independence. These words were proudly echoed in the California constitution. Judges is the twentieth century only ruled that states, and nations, live up to those words. New rights were not discovered. In fact the early arguments about living up to the freedoms Americans claimed were for all people began before the Revolutionary War.<BR/><BR/>I talk about this in some very early blogs. I also talk about the 'right to marry' as part of the right to pursue happiness. <BR/><BR/>We don't have a constitutional right to be in a wheel chair, just because it is hard to get out of wheel chairs. Instead, we have rights relating to freedom of access despite the wheel chair. That may be a more promising civil rights comparison than comparing sexual orientation to a race or a religion.paulbenedicthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06708124992338283169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-76968277579220691722008-08-15T04:03:00.000-07:002008-08-15T04:03:00.000-07:00The court found that sexual orientation is a suspe...The court found that sexual orientation is a suspect classification under the California Constitution and, as such, the statute must satisfy the rigorous strict scrutiny test to survive constitutional infirmity. The court noted that the main contention in this area is "immutability." However, the court notes that religion is a protected category under Equal Protection, even though a person can change his or her religion. Why? Because it would not be easy to do so. A person's religion, like his or her sexual orientation, is a very personal and important self-defining characteristic. The court also addressed the rest of the elements necessary to determine whether a particular class is a suspect class and finds that sexual orientation classifications meet every test.roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01321061879065438857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-51676380488933014072008-08-15T03:52:00.000-07:002008-08-15T03:52:00.000-07:00For many years, neither race nor gender discrimina...For many years, neither race nor gender discrimination was considered a violation of civil rights. Does it make sense to have a moratorium on "new" civil rights? Or are you suggesting that the civil rights legislation regarding "protecting sexual orientation" should come before the marriage amendment?roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01321061879065438857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-21816493247596956342008-08-06T12:26:00.000-07:002008-08-06T12:26:00.000-07:00(2): the state of being united to a person of the ...(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship<BR/><BR/> LIKE THAT<BR/><BR/>of a traditional marriage same-sex marriage union<BR/><BR/>Webster's is trying to reflect current usage, but it cannot bring itself to say same sex unions ARE traditional marriages. That's basically what the Court is trying to do... It can’t of course either. The Court’s definition is not 1 AND 2 as given in Webster’s. The Court doesn't say "domestic partnerships will now be called marriages" (which is deceptive enough, even as you chosen dictionary shows). No, the Court's definition is even more impossibly vague. You might want to read a few more articles on my blog...<BR/><BR/>There are plenty of churches in Vietnam that teach Christianity, or Buddhism, or even tolerance for other humans and the role of reason is political thought.paulbenedicthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06708124992338283169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-33792924436493369382008-08-06T09:34:00.000-07:002008-08-06T09:34:00.000-07:00Direct from Webster's"Main Entry: mar·riage Lis...Direct from Webster's<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Main Entry:<BR/> mar·riage Listen to the pronunciation of marriage<BR/>Pronunciation:<BR/> <BR/>Function:<BR/> noun <BR/>Etymology:<BR/> Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry<BR/>Date:<BR/> 14th century<BR/><BR/>1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage same-sex marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union "<BR/><BR/>See (2) above. Maybe I should check out Westboro Baptist Church this weekend...unfortunately I live in Vietnam.roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01321061879065438857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-82995329203732706542008-08-06T08:58:00.000-07:002008-08-06T08:58:00.000-07:00Hi Robert,Marriage happens in every society in his...Hi Robert,<BR/><BR/>Marriage happens in every society in history no matter what the religious belief is. Free people pursuing happiness get married all the time. Atheists get married... the definition is in the dictionary. Religions often try to explain the meaning of marriage, but marriage is still marriage. Marriage, in its dictionary definition, is a fundamental right of free people. <BR/><BR/>The folks passing laws trying to insist that everyone believe what they believe are, currently, not the Christians. Nope... the gay community and those that support the George Court are the religiously intolerant... aren't they?<BR/><BR/>If I insist on the dictionary definition of marriage or family, then these people act "holier than thou," begin condemning and name calling... then they pass unconstitutional laws by deceptive means... the entire time demonizing whom? People that believe the Bible... Some folks need new friends... Try a church.paulbenedicthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06708124992338283169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-53283065429960479602008-08-06T08:47:00.000-07:002008-08-06T08:47:00.000-07:00The words "family relationship" are misleading. A ...The words "family relationship" are misleading. A marriage is not a family... no children yet. However, like many good English words, that one too has bitten the dust in the George court. A marriage is now a family relationship in the George Courtroom. <BR/><BR/>What do you mean by allowing "others to marry?" If you wanted the George court to prescribe laws that value other unions as much as marriage, it did not do that at all. <BR/><BR/>What the George court did was write marriage out of California law altogether, devaluing marriage and dehumanizing marriage, while leaving the word "marriage" in the law with a misleading and ambiguous definition that is essentially synonymous with a domestic partnership. That's why there are no more "husbands" and "wives" on California marriage licenses.<BR/><BR/>There are other ways to accomplish equality in California. We do a decent job as a whole. Calling me a bigot for disagreeing with you on this is evidence of a thoughtless approach to government. You need to better... not me.paulbenedicthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06708124992338283169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-42307379532870480562008-08-06T04:53:00.000-07:002008-08-06T04:53:00.000-07:00Sad. Just sad.What part of Judge George's languag...Sad. Just sad.<BR/><BR/>What part of Judge George's language do you take exception to?<BR/><BR/>The part about "promoting family relationships" or the part about "reducing discrimination" ??<BR/><BR/>A "Yes" vote on Proposition 8 is only going to prolong the agony of bigots who refuse to get their heads around the reality that a majority is emerging among us straight married family types (like me) that sees no threat in allowing others the opportunity to marry.Chino Blancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17089075247725625711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-87418058478999414302008-08-06T03:45:00.000-07:002008-08-06T03:45:00.000-07:00http://thetownscrier.blogspot.com/The Town Crier"T...http://thetownscrier.blogspot.com/<BR/>The Town Crier<BR/>"The spontaneous ability of folks to get married, by that I mean the dictionary definition, is part of what we are as humans. Religions often seek to explain what we are."<BR/><BR/>As religions seek to explain "what we are," they are not in civil law sanctioned to 'DEFINE what we are'(although they certainly try) Therefore, it makes no sense to apply such biased 'explanations' in defining participants in a civil marriage. <BR/><BR/>Mormons and fundamentalist christians just want everyone to believe as they do like we are children who cannot think for ourselves. Your mythology is not interesting to everyone. If you want to believe in talking snakes or heads in hats and seer stones that is your business, but keep it out of my civil rights.roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01321061879065438857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-33964963947667576152008-08-01T08:46:00.000-07:002008-08-01T08:46:00.000-07:00In a round about way, this post makes some sense. ...In a round about way, this post makes some sense. If marriage is a "civil right" and "inalienable right" it exists for people prior to society or government. Some people don't believe they can get married without a "preacher." If this is what they believe, then marriage is not an inalienable right. However, most believe that marriage exists independent of any particular religious beliefs. The spontaneous ability of folks to get married, by that I mean the dictionary definition, is part of what we are as humans. Religions often seek to explain what we are. <BR/><BR/>Again, same sex couples that want to get "married" are using the word to mean something different than what it means. In other words they don't want to get married; they want to do some other thing and have everyone pretend with them that what they've done is marriage. Sorry, that's too silly for words and dangerous to everyone in government.paulbenedicthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06708124992338283169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-48850168675848329302008-08-01T08:04:00.000-07:002008-08-01T08:04:00.000-07:00Your Church recognizes the validity of civil marri...Your Church recognizes the validity of civil marriages that are only for this life and not eternity, even though this is not how your God intended it.<BR/><BR/>Yet they distinguish between a civil marriage and a covenant made between the marriage parties and your Heavenly Father (definitely not mine).<BR/> In other words, there is not a religious covenant made in a civil marriage, but two people are allowed to marry outside of the Temple and are not breaking the law of chastity when they consummate such marriages. So, why should it matter who marries in a civil marriage, when your Heavenly Father's plan for marriage is only through the Temple, anyway?<BR/><BR/>I wonder if the official position against civil marriage between homosexuals is simply a result of the social beliefs of older members of the Church who are now in positions of responsibility within the Church much like has been in the past with Church leaders from decades ago regarding interracial relationships, which were illegal for a long time in most states in the US.roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01321061879065438857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-21177786757171464282008-07-28T17:16:00.000-07:002008-07-28T17:16:00.000-07:00I'm not sure which comment you're referring to. It...I'm not sure which comment you're referring to. It's the Court of California that calls and called domestic partnership "family relationships." Look it up on dictionary.com. Marriage, its dictionary definition is not a family, is not (just) fidelity to an oath, is not (just loving feelings). Marriage is marriage.paulbenedicthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06708124992338283169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-66379956445947086032008-07-28T15:16:00.000-07:002008-07-28T15:16:00.000-07:00You're a sad, sad man.But thank you for commenting...You're a sad, sad man.<BR/>But thank you for commenting on my page, I was worried it was just read by my mother and my friends.<BR/>Glad I have fans.<BR/>By the way, I'd give up that "no kids produced = no marriage" argument, it's ridiculously flawed.Shabooghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10641687411948054827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-477948041106991399.post-76723568401275437912008-07-19T21:04:00.000-07:002008-07-19T21:04:00.000-07:00Hi LT,I expanded my article "Marriage is Not a Sch...Hi LT,<BR/><BR/>I expanded my article "Marriage is Not a School" when I posted at Nolan Chart. Here's the link:<BR/>http://www.nolanchart.com/article4288.html<BR/>The expansion includes a paragraph that explains the continuing use of circular reasoning by the California Supremes. The passage you quote indulges in the same logical fallacy. The Court assumes that marriage is not between a man and a woman and then "expands" its designation to something that is not between just a man and a woman. <BR/><BR/>I guess you had no more success than I did finding an explicit definition of marriage in the Court's opinion. Somewhere in there the court does emphatically add that whatever marriage is it does not include polygamy... Did you find that section?paulbenedicthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06708124992338283169noreply@blogger.com