Replies

"There is no "fundamental right" to homosexual marriage Luis."

That's funny.

When cornered, most conservatives would agree that rights are not granted by a document, nor are they subject to another's opinions...they simply exist, with the Constitution protecting them. That's until the moment that some "right" is brought into question which "offends" our sensitivities, then we immediately launch into all sorts of goobly-gook about whether this fundamental right, or that fundamental right exists or not.

Here's one right you do not have...the right to deny others their right to life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness based on YOUR biases.

There will be some sort of recognized civil union for same sex people, you can't stop it, the Church will not be forced to either recognize these marriages, nor perform them, and the institution of marriage will survive in spite of the best efforts of heterosexuals to destroy it.

It's all happening right in front of your eyes, and wishing that it wasn't will not make it go away.

Nearly every right confered to a legal spouse via marriage can be obtained through an attorney, and contracts, the few exceptions being Social Security benefits, and next of kin privileges in health care and surviving spouse duties. I have no problem with any person willing to enter into those agreements with another, gender arrangement be damned, you seem to have issues.

I also understand that whether gays marry or not in no way cheapen my marriage...I'm not so insecure to fear that. I know one more thing that you are not willing to accept..."they" are not going away.

Now, can you detail by what power the government denies Mormons the right to polygamy as a part of their religious observances?

Or will you continue to avoid answering the difficult questions?

I agree with you on the bulk of your policy points, but are you arguing that SCOTUS should decree that gays have a constitutional right to state sanctioned "marriage" or "civil unions," with benefits wholly equal to those affored heterosexual couples in a marriage? What we think is good policy in our own minds is not always co-extensive with a Constitutional right. Indeed, I would argue that it typically is not. I assume you would agree.

You have also IMO not really grappled with the argument on which John and I do agree, that "resolving" these matters by judicial fiat lends to the coarsening of the public square, irreconciable bitterness by the losing side, and such downside legacies as making judicial confirmations a partisan food fight, where in time only purported stealth moderates will be confirmable to choke point judicial positions, i.e. nominees whom folks really don't have much of a clue how they will turn out (you know, folks like Stevens, Seuter, O'Connor, Kennedy, Breyer and the like). That strikes me as a risky scheme, furthering undermining the underlying precept that is "fundamental" and "essential to the pursuit of liberty in all its spatial dimensions," that laws should have at least some nexus, however attentuated, with the consent of the governed.

I think it would be helpful to keep the two aspects of this debate (policy versus process) clearly distinct in our minds. John and I do that with each other, which is why we get along so well on this matter, as well as some others (such as the Judge Moore affair), where we are on wholly opposite sides of some aspects of a divisive issue.

Regards, as always. I am just trying to assist in constructive debate.

When cornered, most conservatives would agree that rights are not granted by a document, nor are they subject to another's opinions...they simply exist, with the Constitution protecting them.

I would hope that if they are thinking conservatives they would not say this. If God exists, then our rights are granted by Him. If He does not, then man has to make them up for himself and decide to enforce them. Without a transcendent authority God there is no such thing as an unalienable right. But either way, they do not "simply exist".