[PD/TD] Re: [CS-FSLUG] Activist Republican Judge Says CA Marriage Law Unconstitutional

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 08:33:35PM -0600, Bob Brown wrote:
> What if I believe that there should not be full government support for
> homosexual marriages and I believe it based upon non-religious
> reasons? Does that make my belief more valid?

Depends on what your grounds are.  Everyone is entitled to their
oppinion.  Only those with good reasons for it are entitled to have
their oppinions acted upon.  Why are you opposed to homosexual marriage,
if it is not for religious reasons?

> If it does not then I am the subject of intolerance because my beliefs
> are being summarily dismissed based upon a disagreement.
> If it does then I am also the subject of intolerance due to my
> religious beliefs.
> 
> Because a belief is held by people with religious convictions does not
> make it wrong.

Very true.  However, the government is not abbrogating your right to hold
any belief you want.  When judges strike down laws such as the one
mentioned, they do it because those laws are abbrogating the rights of
those who disagree with you.  You believe that only one man and one
woman have the right to wed?  Fine, don't marry a man.  Your rights have
been upheld.

> For anyone to call themselves tolerant, intelligent, and honest and
> yet be so filled with prejudice that they summarily dismiss an idea
> because it is connected with a religious belief held by the majority
> of the citizenry is the purest of hypodrisy.

Your beliefs are not being dismissed.  If they are based upon an
adequate interpretation of data in a repeatable study, they would likely
be taken into account, if you brought them to the appropriate
authorities.  If your reasons for this belief are "Thus saith the Lord,"
however, you are making an appeal to an authority which this government
does not recognize.  I support this not because I don't recognize the
authority, but because I don't believe that the governments place is to
enforce sanctity or to dictate morality.  I want to be able to say,
"This action of the government is immoral," and fight it on those
grounds.  Note what I'm saying here:  To fight an action of the
government on moral grounds is proper.  To advocate an action of the
government on moral grounds is less so.

Even as I write this, I have doubts about what I am saying, for our
government has taken actions in the past based on moral grounds, at
least partially.  I'm currently hard pressed to think of any of them
that weren't also based on other grounds as well.  The other grounds
that I agree with seem to follow the actions I agree with.  However, I'm
not sure that I'll not feel differently after contemplation.  Hmmm.
"Should the government act on purely moral grounds?  If so,give
examples." Sounds like an essay.

> So, that removes the argument that we must allow homosexual marriage
> because the majority of Americans hold a belief opposed to it just for
> the sake that it can be considered part of a religious convistion.

As evidenced by my responses to your statements, I do not feel my
argument has been "removed."  I'll be nice and respond to the rest of
your statements anyway though.

> Next, let's remove the argument that we cannot impose morality or
> beliefs through the court on people who don't believe in it.
> There are people who consider rape to be just fine. Should we not
> impose our beliefs on them and lock them up?

Yes, if they rape someone.  They have infringed on the rights of their
victim.  If they just sit at home and write essays about how they're in
favor of rape, no, we should not.  How have two consenting adults who
wish to formalize their relationship before their government harmed
someone?

> There are people who believe that fondling children in a sexual manner
> is acceptable. Is the judicial system wrong to pass a moral judgment
> on them (even if the child is consenting)?

I believe current belief is that children are not capable to give said
consent.  Thus, said fondling is rape, and is handled as above.  I
realize that the penalties and names of the crime in court are not rape,
but ethically speaking, they are the same situation.

> There are people who think that it is a moral right to have proper
> weapons for self defense. Would we be passing a moral judgment if we
> passed ineffective laws against that?

Ineffective or effective, such laws are in place because of a belief
that an armed populace is a greater danger to itself than an unarmed
one.  I happen to disagree with this belief, but there are studies that
support both sides of the issue.  The laws that are in place are not
there due to a moral judgement as far as I know.  Those that are, should
be removed.

> Most laws are moral judgments, you cannot segregate them based upon
> the fact that the group who has moral convictions based in a religious
> belief are inherently inferior.

You misunderstand.  I do not think moral judgements are valueless.  I
simply do not wish my government to be enforcing them, because I do not
agree with the morality of the people in goverment.  Even if I did, I
can not be sure that this will alwyas be the case.

As far as laws that are moral judgements, I'm tempted to say that if
they are good laws, they probably have other reasons for them.  However,
you've raised interesting doubts in my mind.  I believe that the only
ethical reason to punish someone is because they deserve it.  If the
laws are not moral, but strictly pragmatic, is the notion of "just
deserts" applicable?

> We do not live in a Theocracy, but neither do we live in an Atheist nation. 
> The United States is a Democracy made up of the people, by the people,
> and for the people. To be automatically bigotted against someone's
> beliefs based solely upon their race, creed, or religion is wrong.

The United States is a Representative Federalism, moving further and
further away from the Representative part as people give the governemnt
the power to regulate the private lives of its citizens.
Philosophically, it is agnostic, as it believes that the existance or
non-existance of a deity is not applicable to how the government is
conducted.  The "under God" and "in God We Trust" are probably due for
removal.  Actually, running the Pledge of Allegiance through my head, I
realize that the only clause in it that anyone really takes seriously
seems to be "one nation ... indivisable".

As far as the word bigotry, did you know that its etymology is from the
words, "By God?"  As in, "By God, those filthy queers'll never profane
the sanctity of marriage while I can help it."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bigot&searchmode=none

> Any questions?

Just a statement.  I would like you to understand that I personally
believe that homosexual actions are sinful, and that I am vehemently
opposed to churches consecrating their lifestyle in any way.  However, I
do not want my government to be involved with the church.  I
do not want them dictating what pastors say in their pulpits, so I'll
defend the right of the neo-nazis to speak at their meetings.  I do not
want the governemnt dictating what pastors say on the radio, so I'll
defend the rights of Howard Stern and Mancow.  I hope to one day marry a
woman, so I'll defend my gay freind's right to marry a man.  While I
believe that the second portion of each statement involves things that
oughtn't to be, I do not believe that they are the place of the
government to be enforcing.

All that being said, it would appear the rumble is on... Bring it to the
big room.

Aaron Lehmann