Gays in Massachusetts are suing to stop democracy. Groups such as VoteOnMarriage.org have compiled more than double the number of signatures required to place an amendment to the state constitution on the ballot. The initiative would define marriage as between one man and one woman. In other words, the amendment backers want to define marriage the way everyone within Western civilization has always defined marriage. Rather than allow Massachusetts voters to decide this issue, an outfit called Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders filed suit on Tuesday to block the amendment from appearing on 2006 ballots. Having established gay marriage in the Bay State by judicial fiat, the Left now seeks to entrench gay marriage through the courts. Homosexual activists have lost in every state where this issue has been placed before the electorate (PDF), so they are predictably running to judges and away from voters. But even in Massachusetts? If gay activists fear the majority will in a state whose people elected Barney Frank, Althea Garrison, Gerry Studds, and Elaine Noble, in what state do they feel confident of election-day victory? (Amsterdam and San Francisco don't count as states.)

Well, don't forget that Massachusetts also elected Mitt Romney, a Republican governor who opposes "gay marriage." So, if put to the vote, it may very well get voted down. I'm betting there are more against than for it, even in a liberal bastion like Massachusetts. I don't suppose there's any hope they can be shamed into a vote on the grounds that every state that has decided omn the issue has allowed the citizens to vote on it. If Massachusetts prides itself on being so "democratic," what do they fear in voting on an issue? Of course, it's not Massachusetts that fears anything, it's the minority of gays and gay activists.

WE DON'T WANT IT!!!

But the radical gay Nazis can't handle the truth and refuse (like the children that they are) to accept the will of the people and the fact that they are a minority and can only get what they want by lobbying our weak, liberal judiciary.

I don't know...

Should what the majority say go, just because there are more than them? After all, if the country voted to shut down Flynnfiles, I would be first in line suing to stop democracy.

Herman, to a certain extent, I agree with you. At the same time, our Country has show it is willing to let a small minority rule the vastly larger majority. Look at the attacks on religious expression. The purposeful mis-reading of the Constitution by a small number in the judiciary. There are dangers inherent in majority rule. This is why the founders envisioned America as a Republic, not a Democracy. This is not taught today. The same danger resides in placing "equality", as espoused today, above all else.

Herman, the problem with "minority rule" is that, once it takes hold, then every minority will want to rule. Aside from this, another effect would be that the size of a minority could vary widely - all the way down to one individual. That's why the founders realized majority rule had to be the model. Besides, it was used in ancient Rome, where our modern concept of democratic government got it's start. Some, throughout history, have criticized democracy as rule by plebecite, or the "tyranny of the majority," but, the reverse, mob rule, or the "tryanny of the few," especially a ruling elite or a dictator, is far worse. Bear in mind that the left supports socialism and communism, which are two systems of government not noted for democratic rule, unless you counte the several democratic socialist countries of Europe - which are all using the principle of majority rule, also.

Sorry; one more thing, for clarification: what if the "minority" in question was NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association)? They are a fringe group of the overall gay activist crowd, for one thing, so it isn't at all inconceivable that they might try something like this themselves. They are, afterall, using the ACLU's lawyers (on a pro bono basis, I might add) to legalize sex with children. If minority interests are allowed to circumvent the people's will - even once - a precedent will be set for it and every special interest who doesn't like the way the public votes will be able to thwart the people's will and have their way. And you can be sure the ACLU is trying to accomplish exactly that.

Pardon the pun Herman, but when did things become so bottoms up?

We've become a society where everything is up for debate. Even when there are rules that need to be followed and a social concept is overwhelmingly not supported with the sentiment and understanding of the majority, does it still appear that any decision made won’t be final or acceptable because a minority won't abide by it.

This is the attitude of the typically childish and liberal who believe that "no" never means really means "no".

Without rules and the processes that support or dissolve those rules and the definitive decisions necessary to determine whether or not they are valid, we have chaos.

But, I suppose if all groups get what they want when they want it, chaos is just fine.

Why couldn't the gay marriage people have started a signature drive to get what they wanted? It seems to be what other people have to do to get things done. Too much effort perhaps?

Because they've already gotten what they want through judicial fiat.

Now, the GM proponents want to thwart the efforts of a majority of the population who take exception to the fact that they had no say on the matter and don't agree with it and would like to put it to a vote.

The proponents are even going as far as to file suit against the Attorney General of the Republic to block the ballot question that would amend the state constitution and reverse to court's decree.

I know I should wait for a free form Friday and that this is off topic, but I was just surfing looking for information on Laura Ingraham's condition (and hopefully progress) and I came across a liberal blog where people were talking about it.

I was shocked and disgusted to read response after response talking about how evil she was, how she lies, likening her to Lucifer (like, I wouldn't pray for Lucifer either), ending posts with "Impeach Bush" and the like.

Do these people have any grasp on life or death for that matter?!

And they talk about other people being mean-spirited. Wow.

Yay, Bash the gays time. Why don't you discuss relevant issues... i.e. 100,000 dead Iraqis and 2,500 dead Americans due to the hands of war-profiteering aholes running the show. Get to the important issues. The neocons have succeeded in inviting a global hatred of the U.S. which can only be ignored and repressed for so long. Let's go diddoheads.

The real threat to democracy has already transpired and is sitting right in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave... Or wherever Cheney hides is philistine self.

It's pretty typical of bleeding heart liberals to change the subject at hand, dodge any real, civilized conversation, and throw irrational and emotional arguments back. YouKnowWho, the reason why you are your buddies continue to lose elections is because all you know how to do is tear down those who disagree with you, instead of engaging in intelligent debate.

And you claim that Conservatives "hate"...gays/minorities ets...while we must tolerate behavior, it doesn't mean we have to accept it and subject our children to it. Why don't you form a state of your own...and fine 50.000001% of the people who will tolerate your life style as mainstream. If you don't like what our founders envisioned, please, move to the UK...they'll let you do whatever you want! And then you can use their socialized medical system to cure the diseases you get from your irresponsible behavior.

Hey whomadewho, lay off the bong.

I repeat, why don't you choose to discuss significant and relevant subjects that apply to current affairs; as dire as they may be. Fair and balanced baby.

I am not particularly bothered by gay marriage, but I do understand that it may very well be a significant topic for others. In fact it's clear that it is. As for the war in Iraq, that topic comes up often here, and Mr. Flynn does not believe we should have gone to war. Gays are not being bashed here, but most posters do feel that marriage should remain a male/female contract. That is simply not bashing. Bashing is what happens if you publicly announce your same-sex orientation in Iran. It means maiming and death.

The real reason the U.S. wants to bomb Iran into the stoneage is not because of advancing nuclear technologies as most of you might believe due to mainstream reporting. The true reason is our attempts to prevent the Iranian Oil Bourse from forming, whereupon currency would transfer from the American Dollar to the Euro. This in effect would minimize the U.S. association and limit our control of the inherent Iranian resources. Check it out here. www.321energy.com/editorials/meridian/meridian121005.html

or just do the research. Fair and balaanced baby

Recent polls suggest that only 10% of Americans support potential military action against Iran. Now then, if this occurs, wouldn't this indicate a totalitarian type rule and represent or atleast hint at the fact that true democracy has long been buried? Even you bloodthirsty warhawks out there should start questioning the legitimacy, intent and motives of the current administration.

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com

I was off topic and out of order earlier because I got hot and had to interject my thoughts based on what I had read on some of the liberal hate sites. But, YouKnow who is completely off the topic map. Another Looney Lib with no real argument.

"...all you know how to do is tear down those who disagree with you, instead of engaging in intelligent debate."

Chris, you're giving him way too much credit here. He's not tearing anyone down, he's only making his own pathetic ignorance and childishness apparent, that's all.

A few thoughts...

1) An idea is not good simply because it is popular. Perhaps there are good reasons why gay marriage is not a good idea, but illogically appealing to popularity does not show this. Does it make sense to judge an idea primarily by how many people embrace it?

2) Good points, Gary. Minority rule can certainly give rise to problems. So can majority rule. Remember Winston Churchill’s witticism about a five minute conversation with the average voter and democracy.

3) Does anyone know who YouKnowWho is, or is he just a nobody?

I'll second your first point, Herman. What is the issue was the legalization of crack? It wouldn't make much sense to legalize crack just because it's a "popular" drug with some people. As for homosexuality, it's an anomoly and, as such, is also a minority position. Further, not every "gay" wants to "get married," thereby reducing the number of people who want "gay marriage" to an even smaller number. Further still, consider that we're only talking about those homosexuals who want gay marriage AND who live in the state of Massachusetts, and that number becomes even smaller. So, we have a minority of a minority of a minority attempting to override the interests of the majority of Massachusetts voters.

Gary, I'm not trying to be a douchebag about this, but an idea is not bad because it is unpopular. Perhaps there are good reasons why gay marriage is not a bad idea, but illogically appealing to unpopularity does not show this. Does it make sense to judge an idea primarily by how few people embrace it?

This May, here's one minority I'm definately rooting for:

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/xmen3.html;_ylt=AjPW2mx8KCcd2R.t_FuPeKhfVXcA

Herman, this is a matter of what the majority knows is right or wrong and, in this case, the majority knows that marriage means one thing: the union between a man and a woman. So, those attempting to bend this truth are wrong.

There is no marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

But in whacky Massachusetts as in other liberal NE states, people who are concerned that the institution of marriage will be watered down to mean all things to all people want to have a say in this. It's just as important to the opponents of GM as it is for the proponents.

In this case, the oppenents have the numbers so let the democratic process dictate the outcome.

In the "we knew it would lead to this" department, just recently, a woman 'married' a dolphin.

Herman, you said:

"1) An idea is not good simply because it is popular."

"...an idea is not bad because it is unpopular."

I agree with that, on both counts. But, the issue here is that our democratic republic is based on majority rule. Minority interests are not allowed to impose their preferences upon the rest of us. It doesn't matter whether the idea has popular support within the minority who favor it. What counts is whether it has popular support among the entire population and, in this case, it doesn't. End of story. By living in our society, it is tacitly assumed that everyone agrees to the rules of how we choose. Anyone who disagrees is free to either abstain from the process or seek a country that has rules he likes better.

Love Life Aquatic: Woman Marries Dolphin

This just in: http://ffxcam.theage.com.au/html.ng/cat=news&ctype=story&subcat=world&site=age&adspace=1x1

The dolphin's name is Cindy, even though it's male.

I male dolphin with a female name? That's just crazy.

Yeah, forget about the fact that some whacko chick decided to "marry" it, that female name for a male dolphin is crazy.

Hey, at least she's not into gay marriage. That means that she wouldn't have to come to the Republic of Mass. to get "married".

You know, I'm not sure I care very much whether or not gays get married or not. What I DO care about is whether or not the state is defining or administering marriage AT ALL.

Can anyone tell me why we would want the state to administer marriage? Here's why I think not:

1. Marriage is, by most accounts, a religious institution. If a Catholic wants to get married, he would go to his Priest in a church. If a Jew wants to get married, he would go to his Rabbi in a synagogue. Why would anyone who wants to get married go to his Mayor at City Hall?

2. Marriage benefits don't have to be marriage benefits. First of all, the concept of tax breaks for married people is premised on the concept of the IRS. Get rid of the IRS and institute a flat tax, and it won't be an issue. As for the rest of the marriage benefits, why not simply have civil unions for anybody who wants them? I don't care if you get unionized with your grandmother, because it doesn't have the stigma of a sexual relation. It only confers special benefits (hospital visitation, etc.) on the couple (or triple, or whatever). This would also solve the problem of atheist or non-religious couples getting married.

3. The state decides how it defines marriage by popular will, as evidenced by Flynn's flawed arguments. This is always in flux...as new generations come to the fore and older generations die off, the concept of gay marriage will likely become a majority in the near future. If people want marriage to remain between a man and a woman, there is no one that will defend it better than a church (except the liberal ones). So why have something as secular and arbitrary as a state defining it? It makes no sense.

"The state decides how it defines marriage by popular will, as evidenced by Flynn's flawed arguments."

This is a totally erroneous statement. The state (and the citizens thereof) would never have been involved if the gay nazis hadn't tried to skirt around the true meaning of marriage by pushing their "redefinition" of it to be made legal using clandestined and un-democratic means.

The fact is that the definition of marriage (one man, one woman) was consistituted long before any state or colony, for that matter, was established in North America.

It's the corruption of the true meaning of what marriage is that's the issue. Along with how certain groups want to change that meaning against the will of the people.

This won't stand and you people have nothing figured out. Only that you want marriage to mean anything you think it should mean.

"The state (and the citizens thereof) would never have been involved if the gay nazis hadn't tried to skirt around the true meaning of marriage by pushing their "redefinition" of it to be made legal using clandestined and un-democratic means."

You're an idiot. Before there was a gay issue, the state administered marriage. By state, I mean the 50 individual states, not the nation-state. By "administer", I mean that people who get married sign marriage licenses produced by and maintained by the state, and some people who do not have churches have civil ceremonies at city hall administered by city officials. To say that the state was not involved in marriage and its definition is simply ridiculous. I'm saying that the state should not be involved in marriage. AT ALL. Leave it to the churches.

1) Gary, you've raised some good points. Thanks. ;)

2) As for posts 29, 30, and 31... this is getting good.

Typical comeback of a liberal gay Nazi. I say that your statement is erroneous and I tell you why and you follow with "you're an idiot". Then proceed to write a very confusing missive attempting to back up an unwinnable position. Must be too much protein in your diet.

Let me try to straighten you out. Marriage is a spiritual and legal union of a man and a woman. Period. That's the definitive nature of marriage. The fact that the gay Nazis want to change that definition and apply the term of marriage to any union between a man and another man or a woman and another woman and force the rest of the citizenship to accept it as the norm warrants some intervention by those opposed to that change. And the only way that those opposed can have their say definitively is to have the issue put to a vote and, as we do in civilized democratic societies, let the majority dictate the outcome.

Marriage is ultimately a spiritual (religious) institution and unless you belong to the New Church of Rainbow Diversity, the rule is still one man and one woman. Law was applied to marriage a long time ago and evolved to recognize those unions and to determine rules for inheritance, property rights, offspring from those unions, etc.and then were carried forward and adopted by new governments and countries.

But the definition has remained the same. Only until recently have certain minorities decided that the true definition should not apply and herein lies the battle.

So, just because a small group of heterosexually challenged crybabies want to have their way and change the meaning to conform to their lifestyles, doesn't mean is should be changed just because they want it to change.

Worse yet, they want to subvert the system to get their way. If there wasn’t such a blatant end around (pardon the pun) on this to skirt the legislative process by putting this issue in the hands of a very liberal and malleable judiciary, there wouldn’t be an issue. But there is.

The fact that the GMN’s are scared beyond reason to have this put to a vote, shows that they know they will lose.

"Marriage is ultimately a spiritual (religious) institution and unless you belong to the New Church of Rainbow Diversity, the rule is still one man and one woman. Law was applied to marriage a long time ago and evolved to recognize those unions and to determine rules for inheritance, property rights, offspring from those unions, etc.and then were carried forward and adopted by new governments and countries."

May I repeat my mantra of "You're an idiot"? Because you are. You completely missed my point, and used the naturalistic fallacy to try to obfuscate the issue. Just because marriage has, in the past, been a legal institution in addition to its traditional role as a religious institution DOESN'T MEAN that it SHOULD remain a legal institution, or that it should have been made a legal institution in the first place.

Saying that it HAS BEEN a legal institution historically is NOT THE SAME as saying that it SHOULD BE a legal institution for reasons x, y and z. Do you see the difference? You have to tell me WHY marriage should be a legal institution, NOT that it IS a legal institution, which is an exercise in stating the obvious.

The only semblance of an argument towards that end that you gave was that the state "determine[s] rules for inheritance, property rights, offspring from those unions, etc." But I addressed this argument in my very first post, an argument that you have yet to rebut. My counter to this particular argument is that the state can maintain such rules without maintaining marriage.

I agree that marriage should remain whatever the religious institutions that begat it deem it to be (i.e. - between a man and a woman). However, I do NOT agree that the state should continue to administer and define marriage. If people need the benefits of marriage, there should be a way by which anyone can apply for those benefits with anyone. Civil Unions for anybody is one option. Simple contracts are another. But marriage is a religious institution, and a discriminatory one at that. There's a reason why the state doesn't maintain exclusive public golf courses, where only rich white men play - the state has to treat everyone equally. The same reasoning applies here. Marriage is an inherently discriminatory (not saying this is a bad thing) institution, which is only for heterosexuals...so why should the state maintain this institution? This is why there should be a separation of church and state, and why the state should get out of a church institution like marriage.

Please address my arguments next time, not your ideologically-painted image of my arguments.

Bravo!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wait, am I gay Nazi now?

"Please address my arguments next time, not your ideologically-painted image of my arguments."

I enjoyed this the most... it's quite appropriate for a comment on this site.

Mr. Smarter-Than-Thou, you are an ignorant slut. You are obviously a very confused individual.

The only ones trying to obsfucate the issue are you and yours by determining on your own that everything is subject to change and open to debate...as long as the change and debate go your way.

If you're so confident that you are right, let's let it rise or fall to a vote.

The GMN's are 0-11 in the states that this issue comes up as a question that ALL citizens can vote on. And when it comes up in Mass., it will lose again.

car insurance usa car wash insurance http://site.hollyvalance.tk/car_insurance/car_insurance_price.html direct line car insurance car insurance quotes ontario http://site.hollyvalance.tk/car_insurance/beacon_one_car_insurance.html and .... insurance totalled car car insurance agents http://site.hollyvalance.tk/car_insurance/connecticut_car_insurance.html car insurance policy form car dealer insurance http://site.hollyvalance.tk/car_insurance/car_insurance_in_california.html car insurance quotes for colorado usaa car insurance http://site.hollyvalance.tk/car_insurance/aarp_car_insurance.html .Thanks.

asdf, you notice how you must continue to resort to appeals to popularity? I think it has something to do with the fact that you cannot argue the point on substance. You haven't answered the question yet: Why should the state administer marriage? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Here's what you should NOT answer, because it is NOT the question:

Will such a proposal do well in a popular vote?

Has the state administered marriage in the past?

Should gays be able to marry?

These are NOT the question. The question is simple: Why should the state administer marriage? Take into account my arguments about how there are other ways to give the benefits associated with marriage without marriage itself.

Do I need to spoonfeed you the answer too?

Mr. STT, stop being an ignorant slut. And a gay Nazi to boot.

Note some of ASDF's wisdom:

"If you're so confident that you are right, let's let it rise or fall to a vote."

Idiotic indeed... as if whether voters agree with you or not determines whether or not you are "right."

MR. STT, I think you should consider acknowledging that you unfairly labeled Flynn's arguments as "flawed." He simply noted that gays are suing to stop democracy. They are and ASDF, to his credit, did point that out. Something happened though... he had meltdown or something...

You people are soooo easy to intimidate. Especially because, as somebody noted earlier, you think you're so superior to us "breeders".

The law and the rules of man are what they are.

We will vote. You will lose. Get over it.

ASDF, are you insane? I don't support gay marriage. Neither does Mr. STT. WTF are you talking about?

Oh. Sounded to me like your comments were headed in that direction.

If that's not the case, then you shouldn't be offended.

ASDF, if I implied that you have sex with men, wouldn't you be offended? If not...

Anyway, the point is that we're not pro-gay marriage and we're no more gay than you are. We, particularly Mr. STASDF, is raising a question or two you seem to have difficulty with.

Observe:

"May I repeat my mantra of "You're an idiot"? Because you are. You completely missed my point, and used the naturalistic fallacy to try to obfuscate the issue. Just because marriage has, in the past, been a legal institution in addition to its traditional role as a religious institution DOESN'T MEAN that it SHOULD remain a legal institution, or that it should have been made a legal institution in the first place.

Saying that it HAS BEEN a legal institution historically is NOT THE SAME as saying that it SHOULD BE a legal institution for reasons x, y and z. Do you see the difference? You have to tell me WHY marriage should be a legal institution, NOT that it IS a legal institution, which is an exercise in stating the obvious."

The real poverty of that line of argument, Herman, is that it can just as well be used AGAINST Smarter-than-who's.

Just because marriage HAS BEEN a religious institution is no reason that it SHOULD BE only that.

Also, this argument hardly defends court action as well. Courts (at least as a fig leaf) decide according to what HAS HAPPENED in the past. It's called precedent. Thus there is a strong correlation in the argument of the court that what HAS HAPPENED SHOULD continue to happen. The more that this is a cover for "progress" means the more that we are ruled by the fiat of courts, who at least make a pretense at observing precedent. The will of a minority to improve under the guise of an established trend or tradition would void the bulk of their standing by which to decide as a minority.

So in defending court action, you need to at least pretend to embrace that we pretend that the way cases HAVE BEEN decided has implications to the way they SHOULD BE decided.

Of course, all this goes to show you how confusing the actual issues are. So, I guess when it is all said and done we must leave it to the really, REALLY smart people like judges to decide when the people can and can't have a say in things Whether or not they practice deception in citing past practices while consciously tearing down the old, flawed, popular things, they really are much, MUCH smarter than us rabble.

Sorry, I was tired and pi$$ed off last night.

So Herman, as STT asks, who do you think should administer marriage? Churches? An appointed marriage council? The elders of the New Church of Rainbow Diversity? A group of winos in the street? In matters that affect the public and the public good, it’s typical that government is in charge of and manages such things. And the government (is supposed to be) working for and carrying out the will of the people.

I realize that everything evolves and is subject to change at one time or another (HAS BEEN not the same as SHOULD BE, blah, blah) but who other than the people that those changes will affect should be making decisions that will change the society they live in? When the time comes that the majority of the citizenship decides that the traditional meaning of marriage should change, then it should change.

This and other decisions should not be left up to rogue judges with agendas who cater to a small group of dissatisfied and disenfranchised citizens who have a plan to circumvent popular opinion to get what they want.

Sea King argues this well. But I hope he’s kidding about these judges be smarter than us rabble. Some may be, but here in the Republic, most are incompetent political hacks appointed by administrations of both parties and are typically ill equipped to do the job.

Until a better system comes along, using the courts to legislate major changes in the way we think and live as a society is not a very good idea.

To Sea King: I already gave reasons why marriage SHOULD BE a religious and not a state institution...so saying that my argument can be turned on me is only true if I hadn't given any reasona and arguments for my point of view.

To asdf: You said:

"So Herman, as STT asks, who do you think should administer marriage? Churches? An appointed marriage council? The elders of the New Church of Rainbow Diversity? A group of winos in the street? In matters that affect the public and the public good, it’s typical that government is in charge of and manages such things. And the government (is supposed to be) working for and carrying out the will of the people."

This would only be true if your statement that marriage is a "public and public good" institution bore true...but it doesn't. Marriage is a private institution between private parties. It isn't between public corporations or public libraries, it is between private people. You failed to show how churches would be inappropriate as an institution to administer marriage. All you did is ask rhetorical questions which weren't obviously rhetorical (i.e. - they did not all lead to a single conclusion that was implied by the question, and most could be answered with a simple "yes, churches could do it.")

You gotta give me better arguments than those.

I said that marriage is a public and public good institution? Don't think so Rain Man. But you can cut the text any way you want I suppose.

Yes, my rhetorical questions were just that and were written as examples to make the point that setting the rules of marriage should not be taken lightly and by just anybody and have to be, as you say, "administered" by somebody of some agreed upon authority. In today's world and in this case, that would be the government or state, if you will.

STT, you can't have it all ways. You ask why the state should administer marriage and I tell you why I think this is so. But you come back with more gibberish. Obviously, you don't agree. I just think you're wrong.

You're making less and less sense and sound like you're arguing just for the sake of argument.

You ask a question; I answer it; you deny that my answer is good enough and ask it another way.

Geez.

I've had my acid today so I'm much more enlightened and in such a better frame of mind. However, I need another hit to continue this.

Actually, you indicated that marriage HAD BEEN a religious institution and wanted reasons WHY it should change. Thus you accepted what it HAD BEEN as definitive of what it was and challenged alterations as needing motivation to change it.

Apparently, that the people wanted to change it is not good enough for you. This is pretty common of elitists, who demand that that the popular vote correspond to their academic definitions of the way that things ought to work.

The law of the states were not concieved apart from English common law. The states did not meddle in something that was characteristically apart from law, and marriage law had a LONG tradition. This is why they regulated that one state could not disqualify what was held to be a marriage by the two participants when they had lived in another state, and it's IN the Constitution.