Comments on Tim, the Enchanter: My support for proposition #8

Religious Freedom Compromised in the UK: link

It is the right of every man to believe and to teach that this behavior is wrong, likewise is the right of every man to agree or disagree.

It is not the right of every man to inflict force upon another man because they don't agree with a particular idea (this goes both ways).

America was founded on religious freedom. Mark my words: if we lose religious freedom, every other freedom will go with it, and we will not have peace.

"We believe that no government can exist in peace except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life." D&C 134:2

For some reason I thought of this snip...

V...

2008-12-08T01:34:00.000-08:00

For some reason I thought of this snip...

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

--Alexander Pope
Of course, that doesn't mean I'll quit google :)
-=R

@roger

I certainly don't think it would be ...

2008-12-02T22:10:00.000-08:00

@roger

I certainly don't think it would be immoral to boycott google, you're certainly within your rights to refuse to do exchange with any business entity for whatever reason you feel best agrees within your value system.

However a few things persuaded me against it:

* Ineffectiveness - I don't think it would be an effective strategy
* Neutrality - Google has maintained a great deal of neutrality in the services it offers. They aren't censoring certain material from their search engine, or refusing to host videos on their video sites that promote traditional marriage. I appreciate this about google.
* Golden rule - I thought of if I would want people to refuse to do business with me because of my beliefs on traditional marriage, or my support for a bill that supported traditional marriage and in my view protected religious liberty.

Tim

@andrew and @idan:

An LDS declaration of be...

2008-12-02T21:45:00.000-08:00

@andrew and @idan:

An LDS declaration of beliefs goes like this : "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (Article of Faith #11)

I'm not opposed to homosexual partners having the same rights and privileges as married couples, so long as those rights do not infringe upon mine.

Let me repeat something I wrote in an email to a friend:

I believe there is deliberate effort being made right now to ultimately make it illegal to say (and perhaps eventually believe) that homosexuality is a sin, and to force it's acceptance on all civilization. As soon as homosexuality falls into the same category as race or gender, a whole slew of inevitable consequences will follow:

* It will inevitably lead to conflicts with religious liberty, freedom of association, and free speech rights
* Freedom of families to to raise a child in a atmosphere that values and supports the unique importance of marriage between a man and a woman, will be lost
* Society will become more and more hostile to traditional beliefs about marriage and family
* People and private institutions that oppose same sex marriage will be increasingly labeled as intolerant, and be subjected to legal penalties and social ostracism.

--

I don't have any reason to believe that once gay marriage becomes state sanctioned, the trend of the continual forced acceptance will be reversed. It will only get more intense as those who are pushing this agenda will have more government power to impose their views on others. This is where I dissent.

There are a whole slew of evidences pointing to this forced acceptance, if one has the eyes to look and see it. I've named many through out the comments in this blog. One especially is recently that eHarmony.com finally decided to settle a suit against them - the court had that much power and there was that much at stake, that they gave in to the demands of the Attilas and the Huns who beat their chests and shouted out threats, demanding that eHarmony modify their business to appeal to their values. Seriously? Like you couldn't find a homosexual dating site online. Why would you think the only way to get what you want is through force and not personal initiative and persuasion? The fact that these bullies had this much leverage in their court is an awfully large indicator of just how dangerous of territory our government has grown into.

Here's an idea: instead of forcing a business to cater to your values, why not open up a business that caters to a market that you perceive to be under-served? If you yourself don't believe there is opportunity there, why would you ever suggest that a business be forced into serving that market? And, if people who believe differently initiate force against your business to shut you down through forceful means, then the appropriate function of government is to intervene and put an end to it. And don't call it a hate crime, or a discriminatory crime. There is no such thing as a non-hate crime, and I doubt a non-discriminatory crime truly exists either (even a guy opening fire in a public place is discriminating against a certain group of people - he chose the location!).

This is a somewhat silly example, but it illustrates a point: I am very allergic to milk. Often times, I can only order from about 5% of the menu. Sometimes I can't have anything. Do I have the right to demand that all stores and establishments that carry ice-cream also carry non-dairy deserts as well? That's ridiculous - I wouldn't think of doing that for a second because I wouldn't want anybody doing that to me! I can bring my own desert! Even if I were the only person allergic to milk in the whole entire world, I would not expect people to go out of their way to make my life more enjoyable - I do not believe that I am entitled to the fruits of another persons labors because of the way I am. I would make my own way, and bear my own trial, taking pride and joy in being self-sufficient.

I do not see any principled argument for why discrimination should be illegal. We all discriminate. I discriminate who babysits my children, for example. I discriminate when I choose whether or not to give a hitch-hiker a ride. I discriminate when I go to the store, which products I buy, sometimes based off of the attitudes of the company or if their ideals align with mine. Radio stations discriminate the music they play. I would not like to listen to a radio station that played songs about homosexuality, do you believe individuals have no right to create such a radio station? Do you honestly really believe that you have the right to deprive another human being of his property and freedom because you believe his discrimination was unjust? Have you heard the phrase "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"? And, if you want to pass an anti-discrimination law that requires a majority vote, isn't it proof that success and progress was already possible with out resulting to government force by merely getting enough people to vote for it?

I don't see any necessary and natural boundaries that separate Businesses and any social organization. Therefore, I do not see any principled reason why anti-discriminatory laws should exist in the first place, even less why they should apply to businesses and not any other social group. Unprincipled government knows no boundaries.

In closing, my argument summed up: I supported proposition #8 because I perceived it was the best way to protect individual liberty for all parties. I perceive that the legalization of homosexual marriage would be a great source of leverage for those hoping to infringe upon individual free will and force them to accept homosexuality in their schools, businesses, and eventually homes and churches.

Good day,

Tim

Tim, you seem find fault with both the "tyranny of...

2008-12-02T09:53:00.000-08:00

Tim, you seem find fault with both the "tyranny of the majority" and with the structure of our representative republic.

Taking the second point first: it's true that we don't make each and every decision ourselves; instead, we vote for representatives we trust will act in a way that balances their judgment and our interests. It's not perfect, but it's how America works. If citizens feel the people they chose are abusing the power given to them, they can pick new people the next time around. This is a powerful, powerful check.

Now, to your next point — that majority rule imposes unacceptable constraints on civil liberties. I can understand your feeling that the government shouldn't care one way or the other whether you have kids. In this case, I think they care only inasmuch as it affects your income tax burden. Someone decided a long time ago that you shouldn't ever have to pay so much in income tax that you wouldn't have enough left over for necessities (food, shelter, etc.). Naturally, if your household has four people, you need more money for those necessities than if it had only two people.

Furthermore, any tax benefit (or penalty) that one receives for being married is unintentional. Ideally, a couple would pay the same amount whether they filed jointly or separately, but it's hard to make it come out that way.

More broadly, though, you seem opposed to any sort of government "incentivization" of individual behavior. I presume this would also apply to things like hybrid car tax credits (incentives given by the federal government to individuals) and "national drinking age" legislation (incentives given by the federal government to states in exchange for setting the drinking age to 21).

Whether I agree with these sorts of policies on a case-by-case basis, I don't mind incentivization as a general concept. I believe very strongly that government should be balancing long-term and short-term benefits — something that both individuals and the free market are notoriously poor at. And governments are free to encourage behavior that's in long-term interest. If you feel that they're encouraging behavior that's arbitrary, or even hurtful, then there's always the ballot box.

Let's bring this back to Proposition 8, though. I find an odd discord between your distrust of majority rule and your desire to ban gay marriage in California as the result of a ballot initiative that narrowly won. I'm quite interested to hear more about you reconcile your fiercely libertarian streak with your opposition to gay marriage, because I think we can agree that government should have far less say in what the word "marriage" means in general.

Lol who'd have thought it would stir up this much ...

2008-12-02T09:31:00.000-08:00

Lol who'd have thought it would stir up this much controversy :)

So...the question remains. Should we boycott google or not? What do you think, Tim? I'm undecided still [seriously]. It would be fun, but...would it be seriously christian?
-=R

@andrewdupont.net

Re: redistribution of ...

2008-11-24T21:57:00.000-08:00
@andrewdupont.net

Re: redistribution of wealth to subsidize families

This quote appropriately reflects my view on government:

Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others - with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means.

-- Henry Grady Weaver, The Mainspring of Human Progress [1947]

I believe social engineering, organizing society to behave a certain way by initiating force, is wrong. This is what I mean by redistribution of wealth. If one does not choose to pay the higher taxes demanded of him due to not fitting a certain mold the government is trying to encourage, well... just answer, what happens when you skip out on taxes? Who get's to decide what gets subsidized? If people think it's a good idea to subsidize families, why do we have to have the government force it upon everyone? If it's a good idea, why don't we just do it, without involving government?

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. — James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)

... out of time - will respond more later. God bless.

Tim, I don't care nor do I "assert" that the reaso...

2008-11-23T03:39:00.000-08:00
Tim, I don't care nor do I "assert" that the reason for your bigotry is a "belief of superiority." I speculate that it stems from your religious beliefs, but I'm not here to fix the LDS or any one of many religions (my own included). I'm here to convince you that equal treatment under the law is a binary state: either it is there, completely, pervading all aspects of government and life, or it is not.

As to the rest of the first paragraph, I agree with the broader sense that discrimination in any form is illegal, regardless of the perpetrator. I don't quite understand what you mean by "wealth redistribution" -- for families with or without children. Please elaborate what you mean by that part as it pertains to homosexuals entering a civil commitment.

As for the various rights that you think we will agree on: I think those are a good sampling of the freedoms you enjoy as a US citizen, but it is by no means exhaustive. The test I propose for any potential liberty is simple: if you can do or have something, then homosexuals should be extended the exact same liberties, certified using the exact same language. There are not two kinds of passport, or two kinds of drivers' license for different classes of people.

In answer to your question: apply the test. You have a piece of paper labeled "marriage certificate". Gay people should be able to acquire the same piece of paper you were legally issued, with the same wording and civil rights accorded to other couples in possession of that legal certification. Conversely, we could amend your piece of paper to read "Civil Union," no "Marriage" licenses issued by the state at all. Either way, the state-issued document which recognizes the civil commitment they undertook should be identical to the document recognizing the civil commitment you undertook, seeing as it accords the same rights and obligations. That document need not use terms loaded with religious baggage, but if you insist on the application of the loaded term "marriage" to some civil commitments, then it must be applied equally to all civil commitments. Don't you tell your children to share the toys or lose them entirely?

What remains are semantic explorations of the word "marriage". I define it as a commitment between two consenting adults to live their lives together, potentially starting a family. I think you define it as roughly the same thing, with the added proviso that the two consenting adults must be of opposite sexes. It's ok to disagree on this -- semantics is not a science -- but it does mean that semantics alone cannot prove a basis for legal decision. Hence my suggestion that "marriage" licenses be provided by your church, where everybody is in agreement over the added proviso which serves no purpose in the civil sense.

So, no. I do not believe that the rights you've enumerated are sufficient. Equality is not a buffet. When a gay couple can acquire the same piece of paper recognizing their union as you receive recognizing yours, then there will be no question of whether a civil union is eligible for something that marriages are eligible for. The state should not be in the business of handing out different certifications for different classes of otherwise equivalent US citizens.

I'm interested in learning why you think that gay couples should not receive the exact same civil certification which you possess. If your reasoning has to do with the definition of "marriage", I would ask you why the state should have two different certifications which provide the exact same liberties but under a different title, and would appreciate an existing example of such.

And either way, I am interested in your opinion on the state simply issuing civil unions to all comers. Why would it be bad to separate certification of "marriage" into a public, religion-free civil certification and a private, between-you-and-your-church religious one? Would you feel any less "married" if the "married" aspect of your civil union was conferred upon you by your church and not by a civil servant?

I wouldn't fault the church of LDS from saying "gay marriage has no place in our church because it goes against our belief". Let the LDS refuse to issue "LDS Marriage Certificates" to gay couples -- these certificates would only attest to your entering a social contract blessed by your church. That refusal, while still repugnant to me, is your sacrosanct religious belief. Just as your church should not interfere with our government, our government should not interfere with the private matters of your church.

Tim, I think you've done a great job at calmly arg...

2008-11-22T15:24:00.000-08:00
Tim, I think you've done a great job at calmly arguing your viewpoint even when commenters have turned hostile.

(Which is not a knock against hostile commenters; I share their passion for this issue and know it can be frustrating to argue.)

Your last comment is interesting. When you say that you support civil unions, do you mean a version of civil unions that will confer the same rights and privileges as marriage?

You seem to be against income tax deductions for dependent children (at least that's what I assume you mean by "subsidiz[ing] families") — but would you be OK with allowing same-sex couples in civil unions to enjoy the same tax deductions? (This implies, of course, that they also be able to adopt children.)

I ask this because I'm trying to find common ground. Many of those opposed to Proposition 8 are frustrated at how the debate changes when the phrase "civil union" is replaced with the word "marriage."

I believe that if the government chooses to incentivize a family unit through a legal arrangement like marriage, it might as well offer that arrangement to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

But I also believe that churches should be able to "define" marriage however they please. The government shouldn't care about the religious union any more than God would care about the civil union.

Does this appeal to you?

Tim,

I assert that you are bigoted because ...

2008-11-22T14:08:00.000-08:00
Tim,

I assert that you are bigoted because your espoused position effectively labels a class of citizens, equal to you in their entitlements and obligations before the law, as second class. Taking a group of people who do not deprive others of liberties, and then taking liberties away from them is discrimination.

I don't care nor do I "assert" that the reason for your bigotry is a "belief of superiority." I speculate that it stems from the religious indoctrination you received in the community where you were raised. I'm not here to fix the LDS or any one of many religions (my own included) which think that homosexuality is a kind of disease to be "treated". I'm here to convince you that equal treatment under the law is a binary state: either it is there, completely, pervading all aspects of government and life, or it is not.

As to the rest of the first paragraph, I agree with the broader sense that discrimination in any form is illegal, whether the perpetrator is a business or a municipal civil servant.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "wealth redistribution" -- for families with or without children. Please elaborate what you mean by that part.

As for the various rights that you think we will agree on: I think those are a good sampling of the freedoms you enjoy as a US citizen, but it is by no means exhaustive. The test I propose for any potential liberty is simple: if you can do or have something, then homosexuals should be extended the exact same liberties, certified using the exact same language. My passport is not worded differently from yours. Were we to live in the same state, my driver's license would not look different from yours. Why should a certificate treating my and my spouse, granting me the same civil rights as you and your spouse, differ in a single letter?

So in answer to your question: apply the test. You have a piece of paper labeled "marriage certificate". Gay people should be able to acquire the same piece of paper you were legally issued, with the same wording and civil rights accorded to other couples in possession of that legal certification. Conversely, we could amend your piece of paper to read "Civil Union," no "Marriage" licenses issued by the state at all. Either way, the document which accords you certain benefits (and obligations) as a heterosexual couple should be the exact same document according the exact same benefits to homosexual couples. The notion that you should have one piece of civil identification when somebody else has a different one may seem like a triviality but it is the root of "classification," and it fails to apply the law in an equal manner for all US citizens.

Now, you might say: "Semantics! Marriage is the union of a man and a woman! Clearly this document is good for this situation and that document is good for that situation!"

That is a great example of "separate but equal," which was ruled as a form of discrimination in Brown v Board of Ed and several other cases which comprised the overturning of Plessy v Ferguson (wikipedia is a good starting point for reading about both of these landmark cases).

Furthermore -- you define "marriage" as between a man and a woman. You might do it on the basis of historical precedent ("Um, that's just how we always did it"), religious grounds ("The church does not view a homosexual couple as a family"), or even on biological grounds ("Homosexuals cannot naturally conceive children without resorting to means outside their relationship, and Marriage is partly defined by the potential for fruitfulness").

Most of these arguments are opinions, none of which carry force in the eyes of the law:

1. History alone is not sufficient reason to prevent changes to protect civil liberties. Any practice that has become illegal could have been condemned using the "it's how we've always done it" defense, and yet slavery has been abolished and women are allowed to vote despite a long history of both in the world.

2. Semantics is not a science; you ascribe a certain meaning to the word "marriage" and I ascribe a different one. This alone doesn't mean that I'm right -- it just means that the law must look elsewhere in deciding what is and isn't legal.

3. Any religious definitions of marriage are moot in the United States, where "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

4. The last argument, the biological one, fails because of the "equality test" I proposed above. Imagine for a moment that you and your wife were found, for some medical reason, unable to conceive. Your marriage would still be called a "marriage," and you would be free to pursue IVF, surrogacy, or even adoption in your pursuit of offspring without affecting your marital status.

So in the end, the sentiments you attach to the word "marriage" is really something private to you (as well it should be!) The state doesn't offer you any of the religious benefits of marriage; it merely recognizes two consenting adults who have chosen to bind their lives together. Everything beyond those civil rights aren't issuable by the state; they emanate from your religion and tradition. If the term "marriage" is so loaded that the state cannot use it for fear of suggesting some religious aspect to the civil rights it accords to couples, then the state should issue only documents which emphasize their civil nature and not any religious certification.

So, no. I do not believe that the rights you've enumerated are sufficient. Equality is not a buffet. When a gay couple can acquire the same piece of paper recognizing their union as you receive recognizing yours, then there will be no question of whether a civil union is eligible for something that marriages are eligible for. The state should not be in the business of handing out different certifications for different classes of otherwise equivalent US citizens. The document they hold should say the exact same thing as the document you hold, just like our passports and drivers' licenses.

I'm interested in learning why you think that gay couples should not receive the exact same "Marriage Certificate" which you possess.

If your reasoning has to do with the definition of "marriage", I would ask you why the state should have two different certifications which provide the exact same liberties but under a different title, and would appreciate an existing example of such.

And either way, I am interested in your opinion on the state simply issuing civil unions to all comers. Why would it be bad for your civil rights as a couple to be enshrined in a civil document issued by the state, and titled as such? I wouldn't fault the church of LDS from saying "gay marriage has no place in our church because it goes against our belief". Let the LDS refuse to issue "LDS Marriage Certificates" to gay couples -- these certificates would only attest to your entering a social contract blessed by your church. That refusal, while still repugnant to me, is your sacrosanct religious belief. Just as your church should not interfere with our government, our government should not interfere with your church.

@lance - thank you, you're awesome.

@Idan
2008-11-22T01:28:00.000-08:00
@lance - thank you, you're awesome.

@Idan

I appreciate the sincerity in you taking the time to comment on my blog and raise these points to my attention. I'm fine with this debate continuing here. There are a million tangents where we could take this discussion, so I'm going to try my best to focus on what or two points. OK - enough chit chat! :)

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

To review, and to ensure that I understand your position, you assert that I am a biggot because my position is based on a belief of superiority, and not reason. You assert that my support of proposition #8 is discriminatory, that discrimination is and should be against the law, and that the supreme court decides what constitutes discrimination. Additionally, businesses found to be discriminating should and ought to be punished. You also assert that homosexuals have no choice in how they are, but agree that evidence is sparse to support a conclusion one way or another.

Before I ask the next question, let me state something I predict we will agree on. I believe those that practice homosexuality should not be denied hospital visitation rights, legal protection for inheritances, the ability to associate with one another, or express affection to one another (appropriately). I'm not opposed to civil unions. Also, I would be in favor of abolishing the redistribution of wealth that occurs to subsidize families, especially non-fruitful ones. (I have two children)

Now, take away the piece of paper, the marriage license. Given this plus what I've stated in the prior paragraph, is there anything remaining, in your opinion, where those that practice homosexuality are being discriminated against?

Lance,

I came here looking for the blog of ...

2008-11-21T18:10:00.000-08:00
Lance,

I came here looking for the blog of the developer behind Git for OSX, so I really had no preconceived notions about that developer's religion or politics. The only posts I've read of Tim's are the ones on the front page of his blog. At the time I first visited, the top post was Tim's statement in support of proposition 8, ergo discrimination and intolerance. That is the sole basis for my understanding of Tim's position: that he believes that the United States should discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of his belief that "marriage is between a man and a woman" and his subsequent implication that a family reared by a homosexual couple is somehow less good or even detrimental to society.

And yes, I did simplify things. I didn't really address the implication of familial fitness -- only the discrimination, because that is the part which our laws clearly speak to. Our laws do not say who will and will not make for a good family short of evidence such as abuse or neglect, and that cannot be predetermined categorically for gay people any more than it can be predetermined for straight people. On that matter, I would also point out that the US does not limit the freedom of poor people to start families, despite the statistical likelihood that these children will face harder lives and are less likely to become productive members of society.

I mostly limited the scope of my argument to the law because that is the least common denominator shared by Tim and myself as citizens of the US.

As for copy-pasting arguments from elsewhere; I don't know if you meant it literally or figuratively. I wrote (well or poorly) every word under my name. I didn't lift it from another source, and I didn't refer to a list of "talking points". I referred to two things only:

1. my sense of decency and egalitarian treatment of fellow humans when deciding whether to post a response,

2. my sense of logic and a copy of the constitution when deciding how to make my case for equal rights / against discrimination and bigotry.

As for my labeling Tim a bigot: whether a criminal has justification or motive for a crime does not change the fact that a criminal is a criminal. The same statement holds for bigots. I don't necessarily ascribe hatred as a motive for Tim's bigotry, but the position he espouses makes him one. I can say the same about my parents, whom I love and respect for many things -- they too think of gay people are unnatural and that equality should come slowly, if at all. They're bigots, but like many people, I think it is rooted less in hatred and more in their upbringing. That's a good thing! Hatred is blind, but ignorance can be cured through dialog. I try to show them how their views constitute a kind of hatred, a kind of discrimination, and a kind of illegality, but they still cling to the notion of a flat world, a world where gayness is some kind of disability, dismissing the "radical, new " concept of a round earth as preposterous.

I don't spend my time posting elsewhere about prop 8 or gay rights or any other subject. I think the world changes one person at a time, and here I was moved to challenge the position of a person who doesn't lack in brains and is potentially open to seeing that the discrimination, the bigotry that he supports is both wrong and illegal. I can't say I haven't harped on the wrongness of it, but the bulk of my response here has focused on the illegality of it, particularly in response to Tim's follow-up questions. I would love for Tim to understand why discrimination is and should be illegal, but I'm currently more concerned with him understanding that it is illegal, and for good reason.

So, Lance, having read my reasoning above, I would ask again if you think that I don't belong here. I would not have wasted the time to write if I did not care, or was simply motivated by some prop-8-talking-points-agends.

And to you, Tim -- I would not fault you for deciding that you don't want this discussion in plain view on your blog; if you want to continue it via email I would comply. I'm both pleased and encouraged so far that you haven't responded with non-sequiturs or blanket denials. Your questions mean that you've actually read and thought about the subject, and I can't really ask for more. Thank you for taking the time to read, think, and respond.

(No sarcasm in that last, lest it be misinterpreted.)

Idan, if you read above you'll discover that I had...

2008-11-21T10:54:00.000-08:00
Idan, if you read above you'll discover that I had a few things to say to Tim as well. I'm against proposition #8. But the problem is that it seems you came here with preconceived notions about Tim's position. You've made things too simple. Until you can realize that Tim is not driven by hate or anything approaching racism, you don't belong here. You're just copy/pasting stock arguments across the web.

Tim, take a look at the 14th amendment, section 1:...

2008-11-20T11:33:00.000-08:00
Tim, take a look at the 14th amendment, section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Discrimination, put succinctly, is saying that the laws are applied one way for one set of citizens, and a different way for another set of citizens.

You, a heterosexual US citizen, are eligible for state-recognized "marriage", with attendant freedom to conceive/adopt and raise a family, inheritance and shared property, be treated as a family by official bodies such as health insurers and the IRS (the latter being the most dubious "pleasure").

The 14th amendment clearly states that not extending the same offical, legal recognition to another group (such as homosexuals) constitutes fickle application of the law, and is unconstitutional.

As for who "decides" whether a certain situation is unconstitutional, in the end it is up to the judicial system to interpret and apply the constitution for each situation. Personally, I have a hard time understanding how anybody can read the 14th amendment and reach a different conclusion than the one I've laid out.

I'm a Jew. Personally I don't care for Christ, don't think he was the messiah, and find abhorrent much of what his followers have done to the world over the course of time. In the predominantly Christian United States, that makes me a minority, one which was once openly discriminated against, and is not entirely free from prejudice today. The 1st and 14th amendments are all that stand between me and your belief that I will go to hell unless I accept Christ. There were historical periods when Christians waged Jihad against Jews, it was called the Crusades, and it is the Constitution that protects me from somebody like you trying to force your views on me, for my own good or otherwise.

In the end, if you like discimination as a part of US law, then what you really need to do is amend the federal constitution to permit discrimination, using one of the two permitted methods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendments_to_the_Constitution.

As it stands, proposition 8 is clearly unconstituional according to amendment 14, and the only means of making any such similar law is changing the US constitution.

The day when the constitution is amended to favor hatred of the sort that you seem to embrace is the day that America, land of freedom from religious persecution, is dead. On that day you will succeed in making America most like Iran.

Why is discrimination illegal, and who / what is t...

2008-11-20T10:52:00.000-08:00
Why is discrimination illegal, and who / what is the deciding factor on what discrimination is?

Personally, I don't believe so, but I have no hard...

2008-11-20T10:51:00.000-08:00
Personally, I don't believe so, but I have no hard science one way or another. I also don't believe that it is in any way immoral or detrimental, any more than a pencil has immoral or detrimental qualities. A life is what you do with it.

That being said, I don't think it matters one way or another whether homosexuality is a "choice". Either way, discrimination is illegal, in the same way that it is illegal to discriminate against me for my skin color (non-choice) or religion (choice).

Is homosexuality a choice?

2008-11-20T10:37:00.000-08:00
Is homosexuality a choice?

Tim,

In Brown v Board of Ed, I'm sure the T...

2008-11-20T08:27:00.000-08:00
Tim,

In Brown v Board of Ed, I'm sure the Topeka Board of Education felt that allowing Black students to attend the same schools as their white counterparts would be a violation of their conscience -- and yet in the end they had no choice, because their conscience was overruled by the antidiscriminatory nature of the 14th amendment to the constitution. As US citizens, bound by the laws and courts of the land, the Topekans were forced by the government to extend equal rights to a group they found abhorrent. That is not a limitation of freedom; it's a limitation of a group's curtailment of freedoms.

The US Government "forces" US citizens and bodies corporate to respect the law, including antidiscimination laws, which protect the civil rights of all groups.

The government intervenes in similar fashion when it revokes the liberties of criminals and other elements of society who intrinsically or through some action, deprive the liberties of others. eHarmony was breaking the law, it was explicitly ordered to stop doing so and was punished in a fairly commonplace fashion: their wallet.

eHarmony simply wasn't at liberty to say "We will allow this group but not that group," because discrimination is illegal. Those 50K dollars in "forced" administrative expenses is probably more than the money they would have had to spend to spend to build a law-abiding business, but that's the way punishments work. When I get a speeding ticket, I've probably caused no material damage to anybody. The fine I pay is a deterrent, to help me remember not to break the law again.

So there is nothing in that last comment which further "limits" the freedoms of eHarmony -- any more than they were already limited by US law. They were simply noncompliant to begin with, noncompliant with a limitation that says "you cannot discriminate."

That limitation is one of the core tenets upon which the United States was founded. Why should it apply any less to eHarmony than it did to Brown v Board of ed? To women's sufferage? To the end of slavery?

You are free to exercise your conscience so long as you do it within the bounds of the law, which is in turn bounded by the constitution. If you don't like the freedoms afforded by the constitution, then start a theocracy somewhere with your own constitution of discrimination. Your freedoms and those of eHarmony are, in fact, as intact as they ever were.

Pursuant to the argument above, I see nothing in your latest which answers the core question:

1. Homosexuals do not intrinsically impinge upon any freedoms held by any other group.

2. Therefore, why should the rights of this particular group be reduced or restricted in any fashion?

Breaking news: eHarmony.com has been forced into o...

2008-11-20T07:50:00.000-08:00
Breaking news: eHarmony.com has been forced into offering a same-sex matching service. You want to talk about human rights? How about this one: "Free exercise of conscience", the ones that homosexuals claim to be so fond of, but ONLY RESPECT IT when applied to themselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/11/19/eharmony.same.sex.matches/index.html

Not only were they forced into do something they as a company are against, they were ordered to pay $55,000 in administrative expenses.

@Idan

Well, I certainly don't consider myse...

2008-11-19T20:02:00.000-08:00
@Idan

Well, I certainly don't consider myself immune from being wrong. Since you seem to be so concerned about my soul (which by the way, I'm grateful for), let's engage in some serious discussion if you don't mind.

First off, lets start off with some definitions, if you will. What is a Human Right, and what does it mean to infringe on a human's right?

Shame on you.

In the end, you, who truly be...

2008-11-19T17:19:00.000-08:00
Shame on you.

In the end, you, who truly believe in a higher deity -- who precisely are you fooling with your rationalizations of hate?

Fact: there is nothing about homosexuality and homosexuals which precludes heterosexuals from marrying and attempting to start their own family.

Forget every other argument. You cite propagandist videos about "homosexual agendas" but the fact remains that despite your radically active 1%, heterosexual marriage is still going strong among heterosexuals, and divorce rates are stable if not decreasing (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/divorce90_04.pdf). Arguing that homosexual marriages somehow imperil the heterosexual ones doesn't seem to be borne out by the statistics.

You can defend your opinion that heterosexual marriages are better -- that is your right. You can find homosexuality distasteful -- that is your right.

And yes, society classifies certain groups as rights restricted. Criminals, for example -- because they implicitly, categorically impinge upon the rights of others.

Homosexuals do not, categorically, naturally impinge upon your rights or those of any other group, any more than my being Jewish (a cultural choice), or white (a genetic non-choice) impinges upon your rights or those of any other group.

You are attempting to force your rights-depriving views onto a group which does not implicitly impinge upon the rights of others.

That bears repeating: nothing about homosexuals implicitly reduces or revokes the rights of any other individual or group. The basis of your claim is that, in your opinion, this group is bad for society, and hence their rights should be restricted.

That is bigotry, not "protecting society" or any other rationalization you have come up with.

As for positive thinking, perhaps the right solution is simple: if marriage is so tied to religious custom, then the state should stop issuing any kind of marriage license, heterosexual or otherwise. Let the state issue civil unions to all comers.

Marriage is between you and your church. Your distaste for homosexuals and their families is between you and your church. Your desire to implement this distaste as law is an affront to freedom and civil rights.

Regardless, tonight I am saying a prayer for your soul before going to bed. I pray that you realize how your bigotry devastates the lives of countless good men and women who simply hold opinions different than yours, opinions which the United States was explicitly created to protect from bigots like you.

Tim, that came across as more snarky than I intend...

2008-10-24T17:50:00.000-07:00
Tim, that came across as more snarky than I intended. I did see you revised your decision to boycott.

Obviously I keep thinking about this because I respect so much of what you do (otherwise I'd just pass by and never look back).

I still think the best way to "protect marriage" is to have a happy and healthy marriage. I'm not threatened in the least by same-sex couples wanting to have a legally recognized union and the protections, privileges, and responsibility that entails.

@gtcaz

Thanks for bringing this to my atten...

2008-10-24T12:45:00.000-07:00
@gtcaz

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, good friend.

I don't know if you read the update to this blog article, but I withdrew my support of the google boycott a day later. My reasoning is stated there.

Warm regards

Looks like you're going to have to stop using Macs...

2008-10-24T11:42:00.000-07:00
Looks like you're going to have to stop using Macs as well.

Apple donates $100,000 to fight same-sex marriage ban

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/

@Lance: If it really was "just" a slippery slope, ...

2008-10-10T13:08:00.000-07:00
@Lance: If it really was "just" a slippery slope, your last argument would be a strong one. But as Tim has already pointed out, it's not just a "possible" slippery slope. It's already happening. People who choose to believe that homosexuality is a perversion (and not normal) and act according to their beliefs, are already losing their religious freedoms. I guess I would have to revise my argument from just claiming that legalizing homosexual marriages "will" (at some future time) infringe on religious freedoms to a stronger argument: that legalizing same-gender marriage will only make such infringements worse than they already are. The "baby getting thrown out with the bathwater" in this case is religious freedom.

Yes, I fully understand your side of the debate, as I'm sure you understand mine. We choose to take different stances anyway. To each his own.

Comments on Tim, the Enchanter: My support for proposition #8

For some reason I thought of this snip...V...

@rogerI certainly don't think it would be ...

@andrew and @idan:An LDS declaration of be...

Tim, you seem find fault with both the "tyranny of...

Lol who'd have thought it would stir up this much ...

@andrewdupont.netRe: redistribution of ...

Tim, I don't care nor do I "assert" that the reaso...

Tim, I think you've done a great job at calmly arg...

Tim,I assert that you are bigoted because ...

Lance,I came here looking for the blog of ...

Idan, if you read above you'll discover that I had...

Tim, take a look at the 14th amendment, section 1:...

Why is discrimination illegal, and who / what is t...

Personally, I don't believe so, but I have no hard...

Is homosexuality a choice?

Tim,In Brown v Board of Ed, I'm sure the T...

Breaking news: eHarmony.com has been forced into o...

@IdanWell, I certainly don't consider myse...

Shame on you.In the end, you, who truly be...

Tim, that came across as more snarky than I intend...

@gtcazThanks for bringing this to my atten...

Looks like you're going to have to stop using Macs...

@Lance: If it really was "just" a slippery slope, ...

For some reason I thought of this snip...

V...

@roger

I certainly don't think it would be ...

@andrew and @idan:

An LDS declaration of be...

@andrewdupont.net

Re: redistribution of ...

Tim,

I assert that you are bigoted because ...

Lance,

I came here looking for the blog of ...

Tim,

In Brown v Board of Ed, I'm sure the T...

@Idan

Well, I certainly don't consider myse...

Shame on you.

In the end, you, who truly be...

@gtcaz

Thanks for bringing this to my atten...