Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Same-sex marriage case brings Napier back to Iowa
By Chris Faulkner/MVM News Network
FORT MADISON - Back in 2004, Doug Napier's son, Andrew, heard a news story about the mayor of San Francisco calling for the approval of same-sex marriages.
Andrew turned to his father and asked, “How can you have same-sex marriages?”
Napier was a lawyer for his father's firm, Napier, Wolf and Popejoy of Fort Madison, at the time. He already had been concerned with the way many traditional and conservative values were being scorned. The issue that puzzled his son proved to be the tipping point.
Napier applied for and was hired as a legal consultant for the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a group of Christian attorneys dedicated to defending people who are prevented or hindered from living out their faith. That also includes efforts in the minds of ADF attorneys to undermine traditional values such as marriage.
The issue that propeled Napier to join ADF made the public spotlight this week, but not in San Francisco; instead, Napier returned to his home state of Iowa, one of the last places he expected to have to defend Iowa's long-standing law that “only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid.”
The Iowa Supreme Court heard the case of Varnum v. Brien Tuesday, but Napier said that five state legislators concerned with the county judge overstepping his boundaries did not get a chance to speak, nor did Napier as a representative for ADF.
He did, however, get to plead his case with the media, having given 13 or 14 interviews for newspapers, television and radio, including the national Michael Reagan program for about 10 minutes Monday.
He's done interviews before, including with Time magazine, but he said, “This is the first time I've done any media in Iowa.”
A critical case
Napier considers this a critical case in that one single judge “struck down DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) as unconstitutional.”
The Iowa Legislature passed DOMA in 1998, and that was essentially a formality, Napier said.
“They were confirming what's been Iowa law and territorial law. You can't get married without the state and you can't get divorced without the state.
“That's why we feel very strongly that traditional marriage has to be upheld.”
The real issue, Napier said, is “who gets to decide: seven justices or the people of Iowa?
“Public policy is always defined by the Legislature or the people.” He said the court has wrongly applied the public policy.
Napier said one of three outcomes could occur in this case:
n “The court strikes down (District Judge Robert Hanson's) ruling.”
n “The court upholds his decision, and that will open the doors to same-sex marriage in the state.”
n (Napier's preferred choice) “They (the court justices) need to bow out and say, ‘This is up to the Legislature, and then the Legislature can make a constitutional amendment.'”
Not just a
Christian issue
Although Napier is a Christian, and ADF represents conservative Christian values, Napier said this issue goes beyond party politics, religious preferences and even race.
Supporters of homosexuals' rights compare their plight to that of African Americans, especially from post-Civil War times to the 1960s.
But, Napier said, in the recent California election for Proposition 8, which would have allowed same-sex marriages, “70 percent of the African-American community voted against it. How dare they hijack the civil rights movement for their case. Apparently 40 million Americans are bigots.”
In that same California vote, more people voted for traditional marriage than for John McCain, Napier said.
As for religion, Napier said, “Christians don't have a corner on marriage.
“This is one of the most unifying issues in our country,” Napier said.
Napier said that Camilla Taylor, senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal and his counterpart for the other side, told him that “ADF and others like us are ‘outside of the mainstream.'”
Yet, Napier said, a University of Iowa poll of the state showed that only 28 percent of Iowans favor same-sex marriages.
He still can't understand, then, how this could be happening in Iowa, other than it's the result of one judge instead of a legislative or popular vote.
“Iowa is a live and let live state,” Napier said, noting that's not all bad. In fact, he said that the issue is not whether people should be allowed to be in same-sex relationships, just whether or not the institution of marriage can be reframed to include them; or anyone else for that matter.
“One of the questions asked (of same-sex marriage supporters) is how does your reasoning prevent multiple partners? They didn't give a very satisfactory answer,” Napier said.
Andrew turned to his father and asked, “How can you have same-sex marriages?”
Napier was a lawyer for his father's firm, Napier, Wolf and Popejoy of Fort Madison, at the time. He already had been concerned with the way many traditional and conservative values were being scorned. The issue that puzzled his son proved to be the tipping point.
Napier applied for and was hired as a legal consultant for the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a group of Christian attorneys dedicated to defending people who are prevented or hindered from living out their faith. That also includes efforts in the minds of ADF attorneys to undermine traditional values such as marriage.
The issue that propeled Napier to join ADF made the public spotlight this week, but not in San Francisco; instead, Napier returned to his home state of Iowa, one of the last places he expected to have to defend Iowa's long-standing law that “only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid.”
The Iowa Supreme Court heard the case of Varnum v. Brien Tuesday, but Napier said that five state legislators concerned with the county judge overstepping his boundaries did not get a chance to speak, nor did Napier as a representative for ADF.
ADVERTISEMENT |
He's done interviews before, including with Time magazine, but he said, “This is the first time I've done any media in Iowa.”
A critical case
Napier considers this a critical case in that one single judge “struck down DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) as unconstitutional.”
The Iowa Legislature passed DOMA in 1998, and that was essentially a formality, Napier said.
“They were confirming what's been Iowa law and territorial law. You can't get married without the state and you can't get divorced without the state.
“That's why we feel very strongly that traditional marriage has to be upheld.”
The real issue, Napier said, is “who gets to decide: seven justices or the people of Iowa?
“Public policy is always defined by the Legislature or the people.” He said the court has wrongly applied the public policy.
Napier said one of three outcomes could occur in this case:
n “The court strikes down (District Judge Robert Hanson's) ruling.”
n “The court upholds his decision, and that will open the doors to same-sex marriage in the state.”
n (Napier's preferred choice) “They (the court justices) need to bow out and say, ‘This is up to the Legislature, and then the Legislature can make a constitutional amendment.'”
Not just a
Christian issue
Although Napier is a Christian, and ADF represents conservative Christian values, Napier said this issue goes beyond party politics, religious preferences and even race.
Supporters of homosexuals' rights compare their plight to that of African Americans, especially from post-Civil War times to the 1960s.
But, Napier said, in the recent California election for Proposition 8, which would have allowed same-sex marriages, “70 percent of the African-American community voted against it. How dare they hijack the civil rights movement for their case. Apparently 40 million Americans are bigots.”
In that same California vote, more people voted for traditional marriage than for John McCain, Napier said.
As for religion, Napier said, “Christians don't have a corner on marriage.
“This is one of the most unifying issues in our country,” Napier said.
Napier said that Camilla Taylor, senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal and his counterpart for the other side, told him that “ADF and others like us are ‘outside of the mainstream.'”
Yet, Napier said, a University of Iowa poll of the state showed that only 28 percent of Iowans favor same-sex marriages.
He still can't understand, then, how this could be happening in Iowa, other than it's the result of one judge instead of a legislative or popular vote.
“Iowa is a live and let live state,” Napier said, noting that's not all bad. In fact, he said that the issue is not whether people should be allowed to be in same-sex relationships, just whether or not the institution of marriage can be reframed to include them; or anyone else for that matter.
“One of the questions asked (of same-sex marriage supporters) is how does your reasoning prevent multiple partners? They didn't give a very satisfactory answer,” Napier said.
 |
 |
|
| Warsaw students take advantage of dual credit | Community calendar |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of dailygate.com.
My 2 cents... wrote on Dec 25, 2008 7:54 PM:
" I believe ADULTS should be able to choose for themselves who they marry. The molestation thing has nothing to do with ADULTS marrying who they choose. (I am speaking as a bisexual and as a molestation victim, might I add that it was my 'good Christian grandfather' that molested me when I was 6 until I was 8, everyone knew and the church continued to embrace him.) Just beacuse you are a certain religion doesnt make you right. I dont understand why religion comes into who marries who anyways. Look at it as people, not Catholics, Babtists,Evolones, etc. If you dont like it, dont do it. I am sure you do something someone else doesnt like and want them to keep their opinions to themselves. Yes, everyone has the right to their opinion, but why does everyone have to be so judgemental. I am a free spirit and very open minded, I am sure I feel more at peace because of this.
Cole, I am glad you have someone to love that loves you, I hope you get to have that marriage one day. "
Cole, I am glad you have someone to love that loves you, I hope you get to have that marriage one day. "
Christians wrote on Dec 25, 2008 1:24 AM:
" I just wondered does that the homosexuals cant be Christians .If its against the laws of god wouldnt it be best to let god judge them. Or did he authorize some of you people to to judge people for him .The ACLU isn't promoting pedophilia . What business is it of any one elses if polygamists want to have 3 wives if the three wives agree to it .Or tell me who its victimizing or hurting .By what reason and authority does some one or the government have to dictate peoples lives .Who aren't hurting any one or infringing on the rights of any other person. If it about morality neither of these things are as morally wrong as what the government does to the people or to force other people who aren't hurting any one to live their lives by the views and opinions you dictate to them .Any more than if they dictated their opinions over your life and marriage .If its about god I dont think he asked for help prejudging people and what if he dosent think its so bad as you do wouldnt that make the people doing his job telling him his business the sinners. "
Jay wrote on Dec 24, 2008 10:40 PM:
" @ Rational Economist
Haha, I didn't know you were female but you are right, since I am male there is no possible way we could be gay lovers, good call!! :-)
@ Disabled Vet
Come on dude, some on here may be hesitant to call you out on your BS because you are a vet (I assume) but I am not. Thanks for your service but good grief, I personally will let God do the judging, I don't judge gays, I just don't happen to agree with gay marriage. You are entitled to your opinion as much as I am entitled to mine, sorry but thats the truth.
@ Cole
Congrats on being happy, you seem to make the assumption though by saying that you can outlast any marriage. Well that may or may not be the case several years is far from a lifetime man. Talk to me when you have lasted as long as some of the people who really do take the "till death do us part" part seriously. Its good that you don't care what anyone thinks, but at the same time I couldn't care less what gays think about my opinion on gay marriage vs straight marriage.
That being said Merry Christmas to all......if I have offended any of you by saying Merry Christmas then A. I don't care and B. Lighten up. "
Haha, I didn't know you were female but you are right, since I am male there is no possible way we could be gay lovers, good call!! :-)
@ Disabled Vet
Come on dude, some on here may be hesitant to call you out on your BS because you are a vet (I assume) but I am not. Thanks for your service but good grief, I personally will let God do the judging, I don't judge gays, I just don't happen to agree with gay marriage. You are entitled to your opinion as much as I am entitled to mine, sorry but thats the truth.
@ Cole
Congrats on being happy, you seem to make the assumption though by saying that you can outlast any marriage. Well that may or may not be the case several years is far from a lifetime man. Talk to me when you have lasted as long as some of the people who really do take the "till death do us part" part seriously. Its good that you don't care what anyone thinks, but at the same time I couldn't care less what gays think about my opinion on gay marriage vs straight marriage.
That being said Merry Christmas to all......if I have offended any of you by saying Merry Christmas then A. I don't care and B. Lighten up. "
Cole wrote on Dec 24, 2008 11:26 AM:
" I very much am in love with my partner and NOBODY will ever change that. We will get Married someday and be as happy as my parents are. In fact we have been together for several years and can out last any REAL marriage out there wait and see! As for people who have there own opinions it sure don't bother me any. They are not going to change the way I feel about the choices in my life. "
hey disabled vet wrote on Dec 23, 2008 12:25 PM:
" It's amazing that when someone voices their opinion, you freak out. Especially seeming you are a vet and you fought for our freedom. Just because a Christian apposes gay marriage, doesn't mean we are down right rude to someone who is homosexual. I, for one, am a Christian, I try to be nice to everyone and I try to not judge others. I would NEVER treat someone poorly because of their sexual orientation. However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with what they do. I will continue to treat homosexuals the same as I treat heterosexuals. I will also continue to believe what they are doing is wrong and I will continue to believe that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. No, I am not afraid I will "catch gay." I am sorry if you don't like it, but I thought you fought so I was able to have my opinion. "
Rational Economist wrote on Dec 23, 2008 11:27 AM:
" To the person who asked if Jay and I are gay lovers: Jay is male and I am female. We do not know each other personally. Thus we're not gay lovers. ;-)
To "Born in Keokuk Live Elsewhere": thanks for the props. "
To "Born in Keokuk Live Elsewhere": thanks for the props. "
To the person that responded to open your heart wrote on Dec 22, 2008 5:06 PM:
" The point is open your mind and then you might understand! Polygamy will be next they can consent to have multiple partners! Then if you don't know it there is an organization that promotes men and underage boys having sex! this groups rights are supported by the ACLU! So the point is Polygamy next but then it will just keep going and going! Just because you say a 5 year old can't consent that does not mean to a sick child molester or the lawyers of the ACLU that a 5 your old can't consent! Maybe all a sheep has to do to consent in the future is go BAA! Where does it end? "
To Why not wrote on Dec 22, 2008 1:44 PM:
" Excuse me, butyour comment about the whole Johnson St. Rd thing was going to far. I live in what you called one of those gov't subsidized Bordelloes! " I am a mother of two beautiful children and have been married for over 2 years to their father! "illegitimate welfare baby be born to a matron residing in the craven sex shoppes out on Johnson St Rd. where every carnal sin is committed". That was the comment you made in your previous statement, I would like to know sir.. What sin have I comminted, by living there having children and being married!?!?!? im sure alot of other people would like to know to! "
Born in Keokuk live elsewhere wrote on Dec 22, 2008 1:37 PM:
" To Rational Economist:
Thank you for weighing in with your libertarian perspective. Too often people look to the government for their solutions, when in fact government often creates the problems. It is beyond me why a collective group wants the government to be involved in their lives. It's unfortunate that more people do not see this from your perspective as it solves both sides of the argument.
It is indeed a troubling trend that people put faith in government to "help" them live better lives. They should be careful what they wish for.
Please keep posting your ideas here and elsewhere... We need them. "
Thank you for weighing in with your libertarian perspective. Too often people look to the government for their solutions, when in fact government often creates the problems. It is beyond me why a collective group wants the government to be involved in their lives. It's unfortunate that more people do not see this from your perspective as it solves both sides of the argument.
It is indeed a troubling trend that people put faith in government to "help" them live better lives. They should be careful what they wish for.
Please keep posting your ideas here and elsewhere... We need them. "
Disabled Vet wrote on Dec 22, 2008 12:36 PM:
" How about we ban marriage between people of differant races ? How about only white people with an income over a certain dollar amount can marry ? We could go with only people with the same hair color can marry. What about only people between 22 and 32 can marry ? How about if you have been divorced you cant get married again ? What if you have a child out of wedlock, then you cant ever marry ?
That all sounds kind of dumb doesn't it ? That is exactly how dumb banning gay marriage is. As long as they are of legal age in their state and there is no other reason for them to marry, why not ? Are all of you anti-gay Christians scared that you might catch gay from one of them ?
The anti-gay people need to get a grip on life. Just because you dont like somethhing doesn't mean it's "WRONG". What it does mean is that you are not a true Christian. A true Christian would accept people for who they are not there sexual prefferance.
As for people from Keokuk being educated, there are some very educated people in Keokuk. However being educated does't make you smart. There are a few smart people on this forum. There is also a lot of educated dumb people too.
Merry Christmas, Happy Huanukka, Merry Festivus, Happy Kwanzaa and a Joyous Solstice to all. "
That all sounds kind of dumb doesn't it ? That is exactly how dumb banning gay marriage is. As long as they are of legal age in their state and there is no other reason for them to marry, why not ? Are all of you anti-gay Christians scared that you might catch gay from one of them ?
The anti-gay people need to get a grip on life. Just because you dont like somethhing doesn't mean it's "WRONG". What it does mean is that you are not a true Christian. A true Christian would accept people for who they are not there sexual prefferance.
As for people from Keokuk being educated, there are some very educated people in Keokuk. However being educated does't make you smart. There are a few smart people on this forum. There is also a lot of educated dumb people too.
Merry Christmas, Happy Huanukka, Merry Festivus, Happy Kwanzaa and a Joyous Solstice to all. "
Keokuk Native wrote on Dec 22, 2008 10:02 AM:
" To "Homosexuality is Biological",
I personally do not care much about wherther gay marriage is made legal or not, I also agree with you that I think it is a biological thing. However, I am not sure where you get off insulting people from Keokuk in the way you are. First of all it is childish and immature, not something a true 'well read and naturaly intelligent' person would say. Calling Keokuk residents small minded, primitive and backward is a very un-intelligent, rude, and frankly un-classy way of making your point. There was no need for that and it's not even true. I am from Keokuk and I now like in NY. I am sure you would find plenty of well read and intelligent people here, and the issue on gay marriage is exactly the same here. They same points are made with the same arguement. As it is with the rest of the country. So you are completely off the mark on your insults and I think I speak on behalf of all of the people of Keokuk in saying that they dont appreciate it and couldn't care less about your opinion. While I have absolutely nothing against Illinois having grown up on the other side of the river, I dont think your state is exactly in the position at this moment to be bragging about an abundance of intelligence considering the latest news. Not that the actions of a few ignorant gov's represent the state's residents as a whole. Regardless, save the insults or dont bother reading our paper. "
I personally do not care much about wherther gay marriage is made legal or not, I also agree with you that I think it is a biological thing. However, I am not sure where you get off insulting people from Keokuk in the way you are. First of all it is childish and immature, not something a true 'well read and naturaly intelligent' person would say. Calling Keokuk residents small minded, primitive and backward is a very un-intelligent, rude, and frankly un-classy way of making your point. There was no need for that and it's not even true. I am from Keokuk and I now like in NY. I am sure you would find plenty of well read and intelligent people here, and the issue on gay marriage is exactly the same here. They same points are made with the same arguement. As it is with the rest of the country. So you are completely off the mark on your insults and I think I speak on behalf of all of the people of Keokuk in saying that they dont appreciate it and couldn't care less about your opinion. While I have absolutely nothing against Illinois having grown up on the other side of the river, I dont think your state is exactly in the position at this moment to be bragging about an abundance of intelligence considering the latest news. Not that the actions of a few ignorant gov's represent the state's residents as a whole. Regardless, save the insults or dont bother reading our paper. "
Open your hearts wrote on Dec 20, 2008 2:56 PM:
" Gay adults can give consent. Sheep and little children can't, genius. That's the difference. "
To Homosexuality is biological wrote on Dec 20, 2008 11:10 AM:
" Some would say child molestation or cannibalism is biological also, in there minds they think it's okay. That doesn't make it right. I actually had an Uncle that was homosexual. I loved him the same anyway. We discussed it. He said he knew it was wrong but that it was between him and God. I accept that, I accept that we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. I just choose not to judge. That doesn't mean I think it's right. I just won't treat someone different because of their choices. For you to tell people they are not as intelligent because they believe in God and you don't is doing exactly what you claim you aren't. I am sorry that you don't believe in God, however, the majority of this country and the world, for that matter, does. Some day (very soon) you'll see that Christians are correct. I only pray that you have the opportunity to realize that there is a God before your life ends. God Bless and Merry Christmas! "
Homosexuality is biological wrote on Dec 20, 2008 1:27 AM:
" No surprise that Keokukians are too small-minded to accept gay marriage...they are still caught upin the several fictitious religions practiced there. Primitve folk belief systems such as Christianity consider homosexuality as being "wrong" but more educated folk know better than believe such religious nonsense. You see, homosexuality is caused by biological factors, a finding.conclusively proven in several recent studies. See the most recent issue of Journal of Homosexuality for incontestable proof. Here in Illinois we are better read and naurally more intelligent than your average Keokukian. We also do not allow outdated religious concepts to overwhelm our common sense. People of Keokuk, please try and think for yourselves. Look beyond your narrow horizons and discover a bright world of learning and knowledge around you. Face the facts, there is no god thus your objections to homosexuality are only the irrational prejudice of a backward people. "
wrote on Dec 19, 2008 10:15 PM:
" To: Jay and Rational Economists,
Here is a question for the both of you; Are you two gay lovers? Because you act like it!! "
Here is a question for the both of you; Are you two gay lovers? Because you act like it!! "
Curious wrote on Dec 19, 2008 9:31 AM:
" Just wondering here to what "wedding vowels" is?ha! I been married almost 19 years to a wonderful man, and never heard of that before! "
Jay wrote on Dec 19, 2008 9:21 AM:
" Hmmm sounds like somebody is upset with Obama's selection of Rick Warren. Lets face it, sure Obama lied through his teeth to get the nomination. I didn't personally vote for the guy but basically he is starting to position him self closer to a center right presidency, albeit he is still a bit to the left, but thats ok he is a Dem. For those who couldn't see it and for liberals who were rocked asleep in Barack's arms on the two words of Hope and Change I feel bad for you, when close to 80% of the electorate position themselves center right (yes both parties) then it is an easy choice for Obama to make, he has to somewhat appeal to the people or he will have an extremely ticked off majority and is less likely to be re-elected in 2012.
As far as the whole gay community up in arms about Rick Warren being chosen its ridiculous and just one more thing for the gay and lesbian community to whine about. I wonder when gays are preaching their "tolerance" lessons if they ever look inside and see how intolerant that they themselves are. Hmmmmm. "
As far as the whole gay community up in arms about Rick Warren being chosen its ridiculous and just one more thing for the gay and lesbian community to whine about. I wonder when gays are preaching their "tolerance" lessons if they ever look inside and see how intolerant that they themselves are. Hmmmmm. "
right to contract wrote on Dec 18, 2008 9:34 PM:
" The state shall pass no law affecting an individuales unlimited right to contract.So cant these people draw up a contract of wedding vowels and both sign it .Or does the state have the power to limit a contract between two individuals which affects no one else but the signing parties . When was it the people voted that judges and legislators in every state were free to ignore the laws of the constitution they swore an oath to support .With anything to the contrary not with standing .Or did they pass that law with out the people voting for it. Because it would seem every law is contrary to the constitution and the constitution not with standing "
Why wrote on Dec 18, 2008 6:51 PM:
" Why are Gays surprised that Obama picked Rev Rick Warren to be involved when he is sworn in as president! Obama is nothing but a politician and even worse a Cook County politician which makes him a liar and a crook! When will people understand both the republicans and democrats are using the voters and are the same. Until we vote out lawyers and professional politicians out of politics and vote for people that put America first ,and not some party there will never be any CHANGE! Wake up vote for America as a whole not for this group or that group! Gays and straights are nothing but special interest groups when they promote only what they think is best instead of promoting what is best for the country as a whole. Thanks Obama you just proved once again that lawyers and professional politicians are nothing but liars! Now are the American people smart enough to understand it! "
Jay wrote on Dec 18, 2008 9:20 AM:
" Rational Economists:
I agree with your premise with the collective being given a right over the individual which is EXACTLY why our the provisions were made to have a system of checks in our system of government. Perhaps I should have worded it better as the "common good" it is my strong belief that individual rights still only go so far as not to trample on the common good. I have a million examples of when an individual has been afforded a judgement over something that infringes on the common good but I won't get into that here.
Ok I also agree with you on the "slippery slope" of marriages to children and animals is unlikely at best (yet would still be a re-definition of marriage). Where I see the real possibility is that Polygamists are next. Why haven't you heard much from them yet? Well mainly because they don't have the sheer size and strength as a group and also don't have as much access to mainstream media. However, I would contend even though I am staunchly against both that if you see the gay marriage thing happen Polygamy will be right behind it, but if you ask many people who support gay marriage (not saying you do) what they think of Polygamy they often respond "I am against it" or "don't be ridiculous" It would be too easy to leave well enough alone let heterosexual couples have their traditional marriage and gay couples have their civil unions. It has gotten to the point where it is just plain ridiculous, how one group can literally push an agenda across the entire country.
I think that an even more slippery slope starts with allowing gay marriage, then you start sliding down the hill of ultra liberalism and where does it end? Will we end up like France or other countries in the EU? I sure hope not. Either way, always good debating with you. "
I agree with your premise with the collective being given a right over the individual which is EXACTLY why our the provisions were made to have a system of checks in our system of government. Perhaps I should have worded it better as the "common good" it is my strong belief that individual rights still only go so far as not to trample on the common good. I have a million examples of when an individual has been afforded a judgement over something that infringes on the common good but I won't get into that here.
Ok I also agree with you on the "slippery slope" of marriages to children and animals is unlikely at best (yet would still be a re-definition of marriage). Where I see the real possibility is that Polygamists are next. Why haven't you heard much from them yet? Well mainly because they don't have the sheer size and strength as a group and also don't have as much access to mainstream media. However, I would contend even though I am staunchly against both that if you see the gay marriage thing happen Polygamy will be right behind it, but if you ask many people who support gay marriage (not saying you do) what they think of Polygamy they often respond "I am against it" or "don't be ridiculous" It would be too easy to leave well enough alone let heterosexual couples have their traditional marriage and gay couples have their civil unions. It has gotten to the point where it is just plain ridiculous, how one group can literally push an agenda across the entire country.
I think that an even more slippery slope starts with allowing gay marriage, then you start sliding down the hill of ultra liberalism and where does it end? Will we end up like France or other countries in the EU? I sure hope not. Either way, always good debating with you. "
Definition needed wrote on Dec 17, 2008 2:50 PM:
" this may be a stupid question, but what/ who has ever defined traditional marriage between a man and a woman? not trying to make a point per say, but there have been a lot of comments on the traditional meaning of marriage. so it got me wondering. any help for me? "
Rational Economist wrote on Dec 16, 2008 4:31 PM:
" Jay: In a free society, individual rights must be paramount above any "rights" of groups. The government should respect collective rights only inasmuch as they are in line with individual rights. Whenever the government grants rights to collectives and those rights can trump individuals' rights, there is a loss of freedom as the collective can force individuals into things they may not consent to doing. I don't think we disagree about this, but I do think its important to be clear in the words we use: you may see the rights of individuals (not the collective) being violated by nudists in parks and someone crying fire in a crowded theatre.
My position on the matter of gay marriage is that the state should not be involved (and it should not be involved in heterosexual marriages either). The mere fact that it is involved is the source of all of these arguments. If marriage were only a private contractual agreement between consenting adults (as it properly should be) it would only be the business of those involved in that contract, and the consenting parties could call it whatever they wanted.
I will also say that I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument brought up by some on this board that by allowing gay marriage may lead to more unconventional forms of marriage (such as marriage to animals or children). Animals and children cannot enter into contractual agreements. If someday they were able to (and we are a long, long way from that) then maybe that would be a concern. In the present day, it's not a good argument. "
My position on the matter of gay marriage is that the state should not be involved (and it should not be involved in heterosexual marriages either). The mere fact that it is involved is the source of all of these arguments. If marriage were only a private contractual agreement between consenting adults (as it properly should be) it would only be the business of those involved in that contract, and the consenting parties could call it whatever they wanted.
I will also say that I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument brought up by some on this board that by allowing gay marriage may lead to more unconventional forms of marriage (such as marriage to animals or children). Animals and children cannot enter into contractual agreements. If someday they were able to (and we are a long, long way from that) then maybe that would be a concern. In the present day, it's not a good argument. "
Jay wrote on Dec 16, 2008 2:55 PM:
" Rational Economists:
This I am aware of, I never claimed otherwise. However I would contend that the duty of government is not only to protect the rights of the individual but also the rights of the collective. Individual liberty is one of the reason that The Declaration was drafted, here is what I am trying to say. You and I both know that gay marriage would have never flown when this document was drafted, and my other point is just HOW much do you protect the rights of an individual over the collective? Even free speech has limits, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. I was thoroughly disgusted while watching the news several weeks ago and saw that a nudist group won a case to parade around in public nude, even in parks around children....the ultra liberal judge decided that it is unconstitutional to deny the "rights" of this group to do this while the collective would not like their children seeing this garbage. It is an example like this and others similar where yeah, maybe individual rights should be restricted, but this is a pretty rare case I mean come on do you actually agree with this garbage?
Back to the issue of gay marriage.....to me a strong argument could be made on both sides both for and against, it just really depends on where you fall on the spectrum, I happen to be against gays partaking in traditional marriage, an institution that has its roots in the union of a man and a woman. Where do you stop when you start re defining traditional marriage? I am for gays having equal rights within the confines of a civil union or domestic partnership sharing the same benefits of a traditional marriage without calling it marriage. What is SO horrible about that? Its just the fact that one group wants to bully its way into law. I really could care less what anyone else thinks about this, I just happen to think that this ultra liberal mindset that some of these judges and people of power possess is leading to the decline of our society, you may have a different opinion and I respect that but I am not budging off of mine. "
This I am aware of, I never claimed otherwise. However I would contend that the duty of government is not only to protect the rights of the individual but also the rights of the collective. Individual liberty is one of the reason that The Declaration was drafted, here is what I am trying to say. You and I both know that gay marriage would have never flown when this document was drafted, and my other point is just HOW much do you protect the rights of an individual over the collective? Even free speech has limits, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. I was thoroughly disgusted while watching the news several weeks ago and saw that a nudist group won a case to parade around in public nude, even in parks around children....the ultra liberal judge decided that it is unconstitutional to deny the "rights" of this group to do this while the collective would not like their children seeing this garbage. It is an example like this and others similar where yeah, maybe individual rights should be restricted, but this is a pretty rare case I mean come on do you actually agree with this garbage?
Back to the issue of gay marriage.....to me a strong argument could be made on both sides both for and against, it just really depends on where you fall on the spectrum, I happen to be against gays partaking in traditional marriage, an institution that has its roots in the union of a man and a woman. Where do you stop when you start re defining traditional marriage? I am for gays having equal rights within the confines of a civil union or domestic partnership sharing the same benefits of a traditional marriage without calling it marriage. What is SO horrible about that? Its just the fact that one group wants to bully its way into law. I really could care less what anyone else thinks about this, I just happen to think that this ultra liberal mindset that some of these judges and people of power possess is leading to the decline of our society, you may have a different opinion and I respect that but I am not budging off of mine. "
Rational Economists wrote on Dec 16, 2008 9:31 AM:
" Jay: I'm not sure if you meant to say this or not, but the proper role of government is to protect the rights of individuals, not the rights of collectives. "
Apostle Paul Said wrote on Dec 15, 2008 9:06 PM:
" "There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ" "
Jay wrote on Dec 15, 2008 2:24 PM:
" I hate to be a pessimist in this regard but look at where our society is heading and our country is heading these days.....it has everything to do with these far left liberal San Francisco values that look to protect the rights of the individual over the collective rights of a group. I have nothing against gays, in that same breath I will say that to afford them the same definition of marriage as a man and a woman is morally reprehensible and should not be allowed. Napier is absolutely right in this article, people cannot come up with a good answer as to where re-defining marriage would stop. An overwhelming majority of Americans are center right in their values and as little as 5-10% of Americans are farther left. It just so happens that many of these goof balls are in positions like judge, mayor, etc. It is time for the will of the people to be HEARD, I thought that was the case when it came to Prop 8 but apparently not. So go ahead, lets gays marry, then let the nudist clubs keep going into public parks out on the west coast and continue to watch our values and moral fabric decline. "
open your heart wrote on Dec 15, 2008 2:11 PM:
" I do know several gay people! And guess what not all gays believe in gay marriage! But if I did believe in beastiality why should I not be able to marry a sheep? Shouldn't your heart be open to that if that is what makes me happy? Also as another said shouldn't that sheep get my Social Security benefits, medicare, life insurance, and retirement benefits? Either you have an open heart or you do not. Because that is what you are saying about people that don't believe in same sex marriage, that they do not have open hearts, but you would be willing to deny a person if it is something like beastiality or child molestaion since that is something you don't agree with. So why are you trying to sound like you are better than those that do not agree with same sex marriage! "
Rational Economist wrote on Dec 15, 2008 1:51 PM:
" Has anyone considered that the problem is that the state is involved in the institution of marriage in the first place?
If the state weren't involved to the extent that it is, marriage would be the equivalent of a contractual agreement between two consenting adults (and sometimes their religious authority) and we wouldn't be wasting our time having these arguments, with groups trying to impose their moral code onto others. "
If the state weren't involved to the extent that it is, marriage would be the equivalent of a contractual agreement between two consenting adults (and sometimes their religious authority) and we wouldn't be wasting our time having these arguments, with groups trying to impose their moral code onto others. "
Open your hearts wrote on Dec 14, 2008 10:35 PM:
" As someone who has alot of gay friends and has spent alot of time in the "gay scene" I would like to suggest that all of you who oppose gay marriage go out and make a gay friend. You will find that they are no different than anyone else. These people don't want to legalize beastiality or pedophilia. (Or turn straight people gay) They just want to be happy and enjoy the same rights as every other tax paying American, and if you get to know them you will realize that. Every group has a few bad apples, and the same is true of straight people. Please people, I beg of you, open your hearts and your minds and let these wonderful people enjoy the happiness they deserve. God bless. "
t houston wrote on Dec 14, 2008 10:17 PM:
" very interesting article. appreciate finding this link posted!
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653 "
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653 "
Why not.... wrote on Dec 13, 2008 9:34 PM:
" why not let those gays and lesbians marry? The majority of them won't have kids so there will be fewer mouthes to feed. Hey if they want to add fuel to the hellfires they'll experience after Judgement...so be it! Much better that two sodomites wed than another illegitimate welfare baby be born to a matron residing in the craven sex shoppes out on Johnson St Rd. where every carnal sin is committed. Yes, let the homosexuals marry..leave them to god. Shut down the gov't subsidized Bordelloes! "
The problem wrote on Dec 13, 2008 11:35 AM:
" The problem is where does it stop? What if somebody wants to marry 10 other people, what if a child molester wants to marry a 5 year old, what if a man wants to marry a sheep? These are all against the law now but if that is what somebody wants should they be allowed to do it? And if the man dies should the sheep be allowed to get social security benefits, that are already to the point of almost already being gone? Where does it stop. Why is this country the only one in the world that is not allowed to have it's own traditions and have them respected? Now if you say this is a free country so anybody should be able to do anything, I must remind you that even freedom of speech has limits. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater or you will get arrested. So even freedom has limits! "
Mark Syman wrote on Dec 13, 2008 11:08 AM:
" An article from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy explains in great detail the detrimental effects that homosexual marriage has on heterosexual marriage. http://www.sfu.ca/~allen/samesex.pdf
In particular, divorce laws are tailored with the assumption that the divorcing parties are a female and a male. The divorce laws have to be rewritten to overcome to this assumption, but then, the laws won't work as well for heterosexuals. "
In particular, divorce laws are tailored with the assumption that the divorcing parties are a female and a male. The divorce laws have to be rewritten to overcome to this assumption, but then, the laws won't work as well for heterosexuals. "
Thanks wrote on Dec 13, 2008 10:57 AM:
" Doug Napier - thank you very much for your best efforts in this matter. "
Why does any one care wrote on Dec 12, 2008 7:05 PM:
" Why does any one care what other people do . It wont affect your marriage .It wont affect your life .What adverse affect does it have on anyone that isn't in the marriage .What right does any one have to dictate over some one elses life .When it doesn't affect them in any way .Why do people have to dictate their idea of morality of others .Shouldn't people just worry about keeping their own marriage intact .Its not about whether you agree with it or not ,it's about what right have you to meddle in other peoples lives when doesnt affect you. I don't agree with it but I could care less what other people do .In my opinion marriage is an out dated institution any way and is completely backwards .It should cost half of every thing you own to get married and $20 to get divorced .There would be a lot less people getting married of either sex then and probably less divorces too "
Im happy wrote on Dec 12, 2008 6:49 PM:
" Don't feel sorry for him. I'm happy Andrew is fighting for something he believes in. I too believe marriage is between a man and woman and I hope that never changes. "
Majoruty rules wrote on Dec 12, 2008 3:19 PM:
" Why can't lesbians and homosexuals realize that in America majority rules?The majority of Americans don't want homosexuals to marry.We don't care if you live together.We don't care if you have a civil union that gives you the rights of married couples but we draw the line at marriage.Marriage is for one man and one woman.No other combination of men and women qualifys for marriage!What is so hard to understand about that? "
| Please log in or create an account by filling out the form on the right. | |
NAMBLA wrote on Dec 26, 2008 11:04 PM: