The Massachusetts Court Ruling on Homosexual Marriage

[chris-uk04]

I think it’s not right to equate the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement. Gays aren’t treated as second class citizen. They don’t have to work for free and they don’t have to use inferior schools. I don’t think gays have a constitutional right to get married. If the legislature passed a bill expanding gay marriage to two people of the same sex, then that would be that. That’s how a democratic like country is supposed to work. A reasonable person cannot pull out of any constitutional right that two men have the right to be married. What I dislike, is that activist judges who’s opinions use broad constitutional terms to legislate law in their own opinions. These far reaching insights into the constitution are what have prompted the marriage amendment talk. Unfortunately for gays, the vast majority is against them.

What I think Gavin Newsom is doing in California is reprehensible. Just because he doesn’t like a law doesn’t mean he should ignore it, but seek to change it in traditional democratic fashion. That is a horrible precedent for a public figure and civil servant to set. If a sheriff started issuing gun carry permits to any citizens who wanted them, wouldn’t liberals be outraged?

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 2/26/2004 4:47:47 AM chris-uk04 wrote:


If a sheriff started issuing gun carry permits to any citizens who wanted them, wouldn’t liberals be outraged?

Anyone at all can buy a gun legally at a gun show without any background check or permit as long as he isn't buying it from a licensed dealer. How could sheriffs make the situation any worse than it is?

Deb...anymore to the left of me and you hit the wall

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 2/25/2004 10:16:49 PM AGBF wrote:

----------------
On 2/25/2004 7:53:37 PM fire&ice wrote:
'No, I never said marriage should be linked to procreation, DEB - Geez -'

Is it unfair to say that when you wrote:

'And, I think 'marriage' is a form of procreating/continuing society as an institution from an anthropology view....' you were doing exactly that, linking marriage to procreation?----------------

No, you misunderstood me or I didn't make myself clear. And, yes, marriage has been a way of continuing society. I did not say that procreation had to be a part of that.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 2/26/2004 7:12:44 AM AGBF wrote:

----------------
On 2/26/2004 4:47:47 AM chris-uk04 wrote:


Anyone at all can buy a gun legally at a gun show without any background check or permit as long as he isn't buying it from a licensed dealer. How could sheriffs make the situation any worse than it is?

Deb...anymore to the left of me and you hit the wall ----------------

Actually, the gun thing varies from state to state. There is some sort of holding period in VA - where one truly has the Right To Hunt - It's in our "consititution" passed as an ammendment a few years ago. If you recall, I was adamant that I wanted my Right To Shop.

Anyway, what I find interesting is that my view comes under such close scrutiny & some misinterpretation to make me look like some religious right wing wacko whose eyes are closed tight. When, at the same time, I see the left (interpreted) view get some high fives.

For the record, I am not right wing in the least. The whole gay marriage thing was not a non-start from the beginning. It's something I gave thought about.

So, my last post on the subject. I believe that marriage is between a man & a women. And part of that thought goes to my position - which I strongly believe - that society can not accomodate everyone in every situation just because.

OMG, I hear the wagons movin on out tothe Heartland & home of R/A.

 

[AGBF]

f&i wrote:

"Anyway, what I find interesting is that my view comes under such close scrutiny & some misinterpretation to make me look like some religious right wing wacko whose eyes are closed tight. When, at the same time, I see the left (interpreted) view get some high fives."

I am only going to speak for myself, not others.

When I asked you for clarification or asked you questions it was not to go after your (supposed) ideology. I had not viewed your position as right wing or part of an ideology at all. I saw it simply as your own, evolving, opinion as you reflected on a new phenomenon. New for *ALL* of us.

I asked you questions to continue the debate.

For the record, I never bother trying to engage people whom I do not respect intellectually IN a debate. For me, debate is exercise for the mind. My brother says if he plays tennis with me it ruins his game. I don't think debating people whom I feel are uninteresting would exactly RUIN my debating skills, but it would not be fun . I like to discuss and debate matters with people who can follow my moves and then pull a surprise move on me and me make me think. You fit into that category, f&i.

Deb

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 2/26/2004 12:06:24 PM AGBF wrote:

f&i wrote:

'Anyway, what I find interesting is that my view comes under such close scrutiny & some misinterpretation to make me look like some religious right wing wacko whose eyes are closed tight. When, at the same time, I see the left (interpreted) view get some high fives.'

I am only going to speak for myself, not others.

When I asked you for clarification or asked you questions it was not to go after your (supposed) ideology. I had not viewed your position as right wing or part of an ideology at all. I saw it simply as your own, evolving, opinion as you reflected on a new phenomenon. New for *ALL* of us.

Deb----------------

I re-read my response & realized it was a bit melodramatic (o.k. - alot). So let me revisit what I was trying to say and tone it down - my view was never accepted - only challenged even if for further clarification. Those on the pro gay marriage side were high fiving & agreeing with their points.

I know you are left of center, AGBF.

You must have some interesting debates in your family! But, is this a prevailing point of view on Diamond boards? I belong to one other board that is dog breed related. I'm the resident left winger there.

I'm not mad. I just believe what I believe. And, keep going back to what sounds good in theory - may not work in reality.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 2/26/2004 12:30:19 PM fire&ice wrote:
"...my view was never accepted - only challenged even if for further clarification. Those on the pro gay marriage side were high fiving & agreeing with their points."



I agree that that is what happened on this board. I don't know why. It may simply be due to the viewpoints of the few people who care to visit this section of Pricescope and participate. I *DO* think that Chris does not simply rubber stamp the idea of same sex marriage, though. He has just managed to remain uncontroversial thus far . (I do hope Chris is a male. If not, I apologize, Chris!)

Deb

 

[mike04456]

O'Donnell marries girlfriend in San Fran




Somehow I don't think she'll be the last. /idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 2/26/2004 2:20:24 PM LawGem wrote:



O'Donnell marries girlfriend in San Fran




"Somehow I don't think she'll be the last." /idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif
----------------

Who won't be the last what?

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 2/26/2004 2:53:41 PM AGBF wrote:

----------------
On 2/26/2004 2:20:24 PM LawGem wrote:









O'Donnell marries girlfriend in San Fran








'Somehow I don't think she'll be the last.' /idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif
----------------

Who won't be the last what?

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

Rosie O'Donnell won't be the last celebrity to do this...

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 2/26/2004 7:12:44 AM AGBF wrote:

----------------
On 2/26/2004 4:47:47 AM chris-uk04 wrote:


If a sheriff started issuing gun carry permits to any citizens who wanted them, wouldn’t liberals be outraged?

Anyone at all can buy a gun legally at a gun show without any background check or permit as long as he isn't buying it from a licensed dealer. How could sheriffs make the situation any worse than it is?

Deb...anymore to the left of me and you hit the wall ----------------

You’re missing my point and ducking the question. If a sheriff started handing out concealed carry permits to anyone who wanted one, wouldn’t the left be all over him for violating the law instead of being a champion of the bill of rights? Gavin Newson should come under as much fire as Judge Roy Moore did for the 10 commandments, but he’s not. He’s been treated like a rebel hero instead of an extremist wacko violating the law. This was a law voted on by the people of California in 2000, not an archaic law. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

(Yes I am a guy), and I felt a wee bad for F&I who was certainly under fire from all sides. What ever is decided, I maintain it’s a legislative matter, not a judicial matter. There are no inherent constitutional rights to gay marriage. I haven’t seen a poll yet that shows a nationwide support for gay marriage. A Feb 6th Time/CNN poll said only 30% of people support gay marriage. The gay community is trying to force an unpopular issue by trying to get the courts to use broad constitutional terms that have no business being applied. I think a constitutional amendment defining marriage is silly, but I can see why it’s being talked about. The ridiculousness of what the courts see in the law is hilarious at times. They can see gay marriage in equality, but race/gender based discrimination is okay somehow.

 

[fire&ice]

(Yes I am a guy), and I felt a wee bad for F&I who was certainly under fire from all sides. What ever is decided, I maintain it’s a legislative matter, not a judicial matter. There are no inherent constitutional rights to gay marriage. ----------------

It' O.K. Chris. I can take the heat.

I have really odd views that isn't recognized by the right or the left. So, I'm called a liberal (in vein) by the right & a conservative (in vein) by the left. I seem to not please anyone. But, that's O.K. at least I am true to myself

O.K. - civics lesson - how does an Admendment pass - one way or another.

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 2/27/2004 11:00:18 AM fire&ice wrote:

I have really odd views that isn't recognized by the right or the left. So, I'm called a liberal (in vein) by the right & a conservation (in vein) by the left. I seem to not please anyone. But, that's O.K. at least I am true to myself

O.K. - civics lesson - how does an Admendment pass - one way or another.

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

Article V of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif

 

[AGBF]

Chris,

I'll try to respond to you later tonight. I have to pick up my daughter at her social dance class and get dinner on the table soon, so I don't want to launch into anything now that will put pressure on my few remaining brain cells .

I have been wanting to say, though, that this proposed amendment to ban same sex marriage hasn't got a prayer. The equal rights amendment failed, for God's sake! If this country finds granting equal rights to women too hard to pass, they surely won't be able to pass an amendment with which some people actually disagree! It is very, very hard-politically speaking-to pass an amendment to the Constitution.

W. doesn't have to worry. He can support the amendment to please his constituency and there will be no consequences socially.


Deb

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 2/27/2004 10:38:09 AM chris-uk04 wrote:

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

On 2/26/2004 7:12:44 AM AGBF wrote:

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

On 2/26/2004 4:47:47 AM chris-uk04 wrote:



If a sheriff started issuing gun carry permits to any citizens who wanted them, wouldn’t liberals be outraged?

Anyone at all can buy a gun legally at a gun show without any background check or permit as long as he isn't buying it from a licensed dealer. How could sheriffs make the situation any worse than it is?


Deb...anymore to the left of me and you hit the wall ----------------

"You’re missing my point and ducking the question."

You can't, in all fairness, accuse me of both! If I missed your point, I am not guilty of ducking anything!


"If a sheriff started handing out concealed carry permits to anyone who wanted one, wouldn’t the left be all over him for violating the law instead of being a champion of the bill of rights?"

I am not responsible for "the left" and don't feel compelled to answer for anyone but myself. I would *HOPE* others besides me would see him for that fool that he was, however.

I am sure the right would be heralding him as a champion of the Bill of Rights, though. Just as the right loves states rights unless a state wants to allow homosexuals to marry and the right loves freedom from governmental restraint unless the government is restraining who can marry.

"Gavin Newson should come under as much fire as Judge Roy Moore did for the 10 commandments, but he’s not."

Indeed he is. Just not here on Pricescope.

"He’s been treated like a rebel hero instead of an extremist wacko violating the law."

He is being treated like a hero by some people and a villain by others (like you). I am sure there are a few other people reviling him as "an extremist wacko" just as you are. His actions have not been without negative consequences to him. But that is what civil disobedience is about: breaking the law and taking the consequences.

"This was a law voted on by the people of California in 2000, not an archaic law. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander."

Ths saying actually is, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" but in this case I don't know what you are talking about. Who is the goose and who is the gander? What is this about?


"(Yes I am a guy), and I felt a wee bad for F&I who was certainly under fire from all sides."

Well, I am glad chivalry is not dead . I'll give you the real dirt on this, though: f&i is a bit of a Scarlett O'Hara. You may think she needs defending, but the woman is made out of steel .


"What ever is decided, I maintain it’s a legislative matter, not a judicial matter."

You have a right to that opinion. If mayors continue to break the law, you may be proven wrong, however. In short, you may WISH it were a legislative matter, but it may not be one in reality.

"There are no inherent constitutional rights to gay marriage."

Agreed. But so what?

"I haven’t seen a poll yet that shows a nationwide support for gay marriage."

This is not about the popularity of gay marriage. This is not a popularity contest. This is social change and it is happening whether or not you like it.

"A Feb 6th Time/CNN poll said only 30% of people support gay marriage. The gay community is trying to force an unpopular issue by trying to get the courts to use broad constitutional terms that have no business being applied."

Yes...I hate it when anyone uses the courts to his own advantage! I have seen such tactics used before, too. By the railroad or the petroleum industry, for example.

"I think a constitutional amendment defining marriage is silly, but I can see why it’s being talked about."

So can I.

"The ridiculousness of what the courts see in the law is hilarious at times. They can see gay marriage in equality, but race/gender based discrimination is okay somehow."

Huh? Since when is racial and sexual discrimination legal?

 

[winyan]

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't understand why *people* would object to a pair of *people* getting married.

Maybe if there was an inter-species (non-homo(no pun intended) to homo that would be different.

But homo sapiens, to homo sapiens, or homo sapiens neanderthalensis, or homo erectus or any other type of *human*...should be permitted...and even encouraged.

win

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 2/27/2004 9:55:39 PM winyan wrote:

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't understand why *people* would object to a pair of *people* getting married.

Maybe if there was an inter-species (non-homo(no pun intended) to homo that would be different.

But homo sapiens, to homo sapiens, or homo sapiens neanderthalensis, or homo erectus or any other type of *human*...should be permitted...and even encouraged.

win----------------

I love this argument. In theory it makes anyone against two people marrying seem heartless. And I just love the passive agressive way this was raised.

No wait, I embrace this philosophy.

My girlfriend & I have agreed to marry when our respective spouses die. Why should all that Social Security go to waste? Why not close the whole SS thing down this week rather than next week? I love the fact that I can be on her healthcare. Oh no, wait that benefit won't be offered to anyone.

Why stop there? I think I'll marry my father. I really do love him. When he dies, I'll marry my brother. I hope I have children with both of them. Heck, my sister & I get along the best. Maybe I should marry her. After all, a person has the right to marry any other person. But then why marry at all if none of these benefits will be available.

And, I really take issue w/ not being able to marry my dog. That bond is deep. I had to pay $40.00 for anitbiotics for my one pup. If she was on my health care & included in my family (legally) then I would only have to pay $10.00. When I go, she will live great on my Social Security. Plus, I'd be able to take the spousal deduction. Fortunately, she doesn't work & won't be taxed in my tax bracket. I don't know how I can choose between my dogs. Maybe I should just marry both & be one big happy legal family.

I really am done this time. I just couldn't let this argument go unanswered.

 

[winyan]

Geeze, F&I maybe I'm a romantic, but mere *money* doesn't make the world go round.

win

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 2/28/2004 9:23:51 AM fire&ice wrote:
"I really am done this time. I just couldn't let this argument go unanswered."



Say it ain't so! You truly are the worst kind of spoilsport: one who can just withdraw in silence! Do you care if you ruin my fun? Never!

Deb...who will miss you

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 2/28/2004 12:41:35 PM winyan wrote:

Geeze, F&I maybe I'm a romantic, but mere *money* doesn't make the world go round.

win----------------

That's just it. Money/concrete benefits is the reality. There exists two separate issues. I'm setting the love & romantic notion of marriage aside. People can be married in spirit. Heck, I think I live in a common law state. Currently, only a man & a woman can make it legal in this country. With that comes certain "benefits". Beyond a commited relationship, those "benefits" are quantified. And, those are the "benefits" that many are going for. This isn't an issue about love persay.

Again, - theory vs reality

 

[winyan]

I don't think that's true, F&I. After all the first line in the traditional wedding vows is some variant on "I will *love*, honor and cherish you all the days of my life."

Marriage, is indeed about love.

win

P.S. Or perhaps, I'm just an old-fashioned type of woman.

 

[pqcollectibles]

----------------
On 2/28/2004 6:32:04 PM winyan wrote:

I don't think that's true, F&I. After all the first line in the traditional wedding vows is some variant on 'I will *love*, honor and cherish you all the days of my life.'

Marriage, is indeed about love.

win

P.S. Or perhaps, I'm just an old-fashioned type of woman.

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

Yep, Win. It is about love. Different kinds of love sometimes, tho.

I had friends in college who got married. She had exhausted every priveledge to get to stay in the US. He and she were best friends. He didn't want her to have to return to Communist China, so he married her.

I knew a wealthy, older, widowed man with grown daughters. His only request out of his second marriage was a son. She loved his money and everything it could buy her. He loved the idea of having a son. He got his son and she got the bulk of DH's estate for providing him with a male heir.

 

[Rank Amateur]

If marriage is about love and not benefits, why are same-sexers so interested in government approval?

I suppose the answer is that they want societal acceptance. But they're not going to get it anytime soon. If ever.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 2/28/2004 11:39:54 PM Rank Amateur wrote:

If money is about love and not benefits, why are same-sexers so interested in government approval?

I suppose the answer is that they want societal acceptance. But they're not going to get it anytime soon. If ever.----------------

Yep. And the more I think about it, the more I agree with you about abolishing marriage as a "legal" entity in the US. That's what will happen. That said, it seems that nobody understands that I am strickly protecting my position in society as I know it in the eyes of US law & the benefits that go along with it. Love has little to do with the realites of a marriage license if nothing at all.

I don't think that anyone can honestly say that allowing anyone to marry anyone will not have a profound effect on the very benefits of what a marriage license has to offer.

Wedding vows are in no form part of the marriage license. Interesting that someone who believes in same sex marriage relies on such a "traditional" vow. Those vows can be administered; but is not necessary to get a marriage license. All we had to do is get a blood test showing we had no STD's.

Sorry, I see no greater good in this to give up my "marriage" as I know it.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 2/28/2004 6:32:04 PM winyan wrote:

I don't think that's true, F&I. After all the first line in the traditional wedding vows is some variant on 'I will *love*, honor and cherish you all the days of my life.'

Marriage, is indeed about love.

win

P.S. Or perhaps, I'm just an old-fashioned type of woman.

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

We aren't discussing marriage persay. We are discussing a marriage license. Two distict things. Gays are more than welcome to have commited love marriage services as does any one (including one at my own wedding). That "marriage" just does not translate into a State Sanctioned marriage license - and the inherent benefits that goes along with it. Why is there the need for the piece of paper if one is truly in a commited relationship? If I was to use your argument, Love should be enough.

And no one has answered any question about how the "Government" is going to define applicant 1 & applicant 2. Probably because it can not be defined. How in the world is the Government going to define "love"? They simply can't; so *everyone* would be included. Right now, marriage between a man and a women is recognized in a different light than simply a contract. It's treated differently w/ certain rights & benefits. I see all that eroded when marriage can disenigrate to a free for all.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 2/28/2004 11:39:54 PM Rank Amateur wrote:

"If money is about love and not benefits, why are same-sexers so interested in government approval?"



R/A was that a Freudian slip? Should one read "marriage" for "money"?

Deb

 

[AGBF]

I cannot vouch for the "veracity' of this letter, i.e. whether it was penned by the person by whom it was supposedly penned or whether such a person even exists. Its provenance doesn't diminish its message, however.

This is making the rounds via e-mail.

"On her radio show recently, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-
laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D.
Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special
Education
University of Virginia
405 Emmet Street South
PO Box 400273
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4273
(434) 924-0763 [FAX (434) 924-0747]"

 

[Rank Amateur]

----------------
On 2/29/2004 5:53:06 PM AGBF wrote:

----------------
On 2/28/2004 11:39:54 PM Rank Amateur wrote:

'If money is about love and not benefits, why are same-sexers so interested in government approval?'



R/A was that a Freudian slip? Should one read 'marriage' for 'money'?

Deb
----------------

Touche'!


On a side note, I can't stand Dr. Laura. She manages to belittle every caller and have an immediate answer to all their problems in the span of 30 seconds. I can't for the life of me figure out WHY these people call her - don't they know she's going to rip them? Especially those left-my-wife-and-now-am-shacking-up-with-young-girlfriend-yet-still-want-a-relationship-with-my-kids losers.

Thank God they took her off the air around here and picked up Glen Beck instead.

 

[AGBF]

Joseph Ellis has said exactly what LawGem did. His premise is not that failure to sanction same sex marriage is as dehumanizing as slavery, but rather that-like the abolition of slavery and the granting of the vote to women-it is a natural expansion of the rights defined by Adams and Jefferson and yet one which both men would probably have found appalling.

From "The New York Times":

February 29, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
A New Topic for an Old Argument
By JOSEPH J. ELLIS

Abraham Lincoln once observed that America was founded on a proposition, and that Thomas Jefferson wrote it. He was referring, of course, to the section of the Declaration of Independence that begins, "We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . " The reality, though, is that we are founded on a debate over what Jefferson's proposition means. And the current struggle over gay marriage is but the most recent chapter in that longstanding American argument.

The words that started the current controversy were written by John Adams. In 1779, Adams almost single-handedly drafted the Massachusetts Constitution. It was passages from that document that the state's supreme court cited to support its decision to overturn all legal restrictions on same-sex marriage. "All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties," Adams wrote. "In fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

It is most unlikely, of course, that Adams had gay rights in mind. But like Jefferson's more famous formulation of the same message, Adams framed the status of individual rights in absolute and universal terms. Certain personal freedoms were thereby rendered nonnegotiable, and any restrictions on those freedoms were placed on the permanent defensive. At the very birth of the republic, in effect, an open-ended mandate for individual rights was inscribed into the DNA of the body politic, with implications that such rights would expand gradually over time.

In 1848, for example, the women at Seneca Falls cited Jefferson's magic words to demand political equality for all female citizens. In 1863 Lincoln referred to the same words at Gettysburg to justify the Civil War as a crusade, not just to preserve the Union, but also to end slavery. In 1963 Martin Luther King harked back to the promissory note written by Jefferson to claim civil rights for blacks. Now the meaning of the mandate has expanded again, this time to include gay and lesbian couples wishing to marry. With all the advantages of hindsight, it now seems wholly predictable that America's long argument would reach this new stage of inclusiveness.

Are Adams and Jefferson rolling in their graves? This is not just a rhetorical question, since opponents of same-sex marriage are sure to argue that neither man intended his words to be interpreted as a sweeping endorsement of gay rights. While such opponents would be historically correct, their argument would also apply to civil rights for blacks and, at least in terms of Jefferson, to voting rights for women. A literal enforcement of their original intentions, in short, would necessitate rolling back a full century of liberal reforms now broadly regarded as beyond debate.

But the open-ended character of their language on individual rights is a crucial clue to a more relevant version of their original intentions. Both Adams and Jefferson regarded the American Revolution as a long-term experiment to test the limits of personal freedom. Present at the creation, they did not want to place any cap on the potential achievement of the experiment in the future. Jefferson was particularly eloquent in urging each new generation to interpret his famous words anew. Adams was a more cautious revolutionary, emphasizing way stations on the road forward to allow time for popular opinion to catch up with jarring changes. He may well have favored civil unions as a sensible compromise in the current furor.

Most important, the way they framed the question gave great advantage to the side in favor of expanding the scope of individual rights. Notice, for example, that recognizing gay marriage will not require a constitutional amendment, but blocking it will. And the founders made passage of a constitutional amendment very difficult indeed. Our debate over gay rights has just begun, so it would be foolish to predict all the legal and political contortions that lie ahead. If history is a guide, however, everyone who has bet against the expansive legacy has eventually lost.

Joseph J. Ellis is the author of "Founding Brothers."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help |

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 2/27/2004 9:37:53 PM AGBF wrote:

----------------
You’re missing my point and ducking the question. You can't, in all fairness, accuse me of both! If I missed your point, I am not guilty of ducking anything!'

I meant to say "or" instead of "and".

If a sheriff started handing out concealed carry permits to anyone who wanted one, wouldn’t the left be all over him for violating the law instead of being a champion of the bill of rights.I am not responsible for 'the left' and don't feel compelled to answer for anyone but myself. I would *HOPE* others besides me would see him for that fool that he was, however.

I think he would be irresponsible and foolish for the same reasons I find Newsom irresponsible and foolish. He wants to tell everyone as mayor to follow the laws, but break them himself? It's horribly hypocritical. What if everyone decides to break the law of their choice?

I am sure the right would be heralding him as a champion of the Bill of Rights, though. Just as the right loves states rights unless a state wants to allow homosexuals to marry and the right loves freedom from governmental restraint unless the government is restraining who can marry. 'Gavin Newson should come under as much fire as Judge Roy Moore did for the 10 commandments, but he’s not.' Indeed he is. Just not here on Pricescope. 'He’s been treated like a rebel hero instead of an extremist wacko violating the law.'He is being treated like a hero by some people and a villain by others (like you). I am sure there are a few other people reviling him as 'an extremist wacko' just as you are. His actions have not been without negative consequences to him. But that is what civil disobedience is about: breaking the law and taking the consequences.

He’s been treated generally like a hero by the media. I’m sure Rush isn’t a fan of him, but I’m talking mainstream media. I didn't support Justice Moore, but I don't support Newsom either.

'This was a law voted on by the people of California in 2000, not an archaic law. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.'Ths saying actually is, 'What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' but in this case I don't know what you are talking about. Who is the goose and who is the gander? What is this about?

Thanks for the saying tidbit. I was talking about the hypocrisy in reporting over Gavin Newson and Justice Moore. The AP or Reuters or most Newspapers treat Newsom like a hero. If it was a conservative issue (like the sheriff gun analogy) the media would be all over him for violating the law and setting bad precedent. Shouldn't all people demand that public figures follow the correct proceedure to change law instead of breaking it, no matter what the issue is?.

'(Yes I am a guy), and I felt a wee bad for F&I who was certainly under fire from all sides.'Well, I am glad chivalry is not dead . I'll give you the real dirt on this, though: f&i is a bit of a Scarlett O'Hara. You may think she needs defending, but the woman is made out of steel . 'What ever is decided, I maintain it’s a legislative matter, not a judicial matter.'You have a right to that opinion. If mayors continue to break the law, you may be proven wrong, however. In short, you may WISH it were a legislative matter, but it may not be one in reality.'There are no inherent constitutional rights to gay marriage.'Agreed. But so what?'I haven’t seen a poll yet that shows a nationwide support for gay marriage.'This is not about the popularity of gay marriage. This is not a popularity contest. This is social change and it is happening whether or not you like it.

Well actually it IS a popularity contest. You've agreed that gay marriage isn't a constitutional right, therefore, in it a democracy, it will be then up to the legislature and therefore it WILL be a popularity contest. It is unfortunate for the gay marriage advocates that they are in the minority, but that is how a democracy should work.

'A Feb 6th Time/CNN poll said only 30% of people support gay marriage. The gay community is trying to force an unpopular issue by trying to get the courts to use broad constitutional terms that have no business being applied.'Yes...I hate it when anyone uses the courts to his own advantage! I have seen such tactics used before, too. By the railroad or the petroleum industry, for example.'I think a constitutional amendment defining marriage is silly, but I can see why it’s being talked about.'So can I.'The ridiculousness of what the courts see in the law is hilarious at times. They can see gay marriage in equality, but race/gender based discrimination is okay somehow.'Huh? Since when is racial and sexual discrimination legal?

[/i]I was talking about Affirmative action or "positive" discrimation. I don't see how courts can find affirmative action in the 14th amendment or the equal rights act of 1964, but let's not get into.