Illiberal Liberals

". . .intolerance for those who voted yes, which they had a perfect right to do . . . ."

So, does Starshine also not have the right to be intolerant of those who voted, to show their intolerance?

"The so-called liberals of today evolve into groups holding doctrinaire and dogmatic ideas. . . ."

And "conservatives" are different how--other than perhaps they didn't evolve, but were Created as intolerant and dogmatic?

BTW, Dr. Neill's quote is nice, but does not include that there are also "conservatives" who never even attempted a "liberal" journey!

"why not civil union"? OK, and we'll call childless marriages "sterile unions" and april-september marriages "temporal unions" and second, third, fourth and fifth marriages "do-over marriages", how about that (there's got to be more)? Certainly all of those types of marriages are "off-putting" to "some folk". How moronic.

Why does the "No on 8" crowd always digress into name calling? Apparently, those that live in that world cannot abide an opposing opinion without calling someone a "moron" or maybe worse, "hateful" or "bigot" or "intolerant". I have yet to debate a "No on 8er", who did not end up calling names. Can we debate the issues without all the rancor? Apparently not. Believe it or not there are reasonable people who voted yes on 8, who would love to give you a reasoned, rational explanation that might make sense to you, but are never given the opportunity, because before they even start, they are "labeled" with some hateful name. I can easily defend my "yes" vote, and am perfectly comfortable doing so, but I have begun to walk away at the first name I am called, knowing that I am in front of a closed mind. C'mon people, let's discuss the issues like adults, I thought you are all for tolerance.

loveforall, OK, how about a reason, then, rather than a rant against the "No" people which says nothing about your reasoning? Aside from the misrepresentations offered in the "Yes" campaign (e.g., about kids having to "learn" about gay marriage), what's good about denying homosexuals the right to marry? We can easily explain why marriage should be between two consenting adults, but in this day and age, why deny two people of the same gender that right? How is denying that right different from denying the right to marry to two people of different races, as was practiced in this country until the 60s, when the Supreme Court struck that prohibition down?

Okay, here is one of many reasons:
There is enough data now on the "I was born this way" vs. the "it is a choice" science, to have a meaningful debate on the subject. It is true that the gay lobby has been extemely effective in presenting the idea that the "science is settled" (It is not.) And the overwhelming majority of the data shows that children are better off with a mother and a father. So, if homosexuality is a choice and children are better off in heterosexual relationships, it does become a moral issue to place children in a situation where they will be less well off than otherwise. That is one of the reasons why I fought so hard for 8 to pass. It is about children.

@Loveforall

You should understand that there is a difference in opinions on your views, and "name calling". I might call someone "intolerant", which is an observation of their actions. Now, if I said/wrote, "intolerant anus", then THAT would be name calling. . . . :)

As for your arguments "about children":

There is absolutely no relevance, to whether being attracted to a human of the same sex is a choice or not. You might as well be discriminating against people who like the color chartreuse, or people who drive Volkswagens, eat onions, and like to put toilet paper on the roll backwards (dropping on the side towards the wall). Or, how about their handedness--what about those "sinister" Left-handers, who *choose* two write with the wrong hand? The point is, that some people will live a gay lifestyle, and it has no bearing on their ability to love, maintain a stable relationship, or raise children.

Furthermore, even your own use of the term "moral issue" is telling, in that you simply disapprove of homosexuality--tell me, why does it matter, that homosexuality is a choice? You link that with your statment that "children are better off with a mother and a father", which I might even agree with on some grounds--but not necessarily based on any scientific data (of which you provided NONE, btw). Even if it were assumed that having a mother (female) and father (male) as parents was better than having two, say, women as the parents, would you deny a child the opportunity to live in a good, same-sex parent household, if there were no hetero couple available, and more importantly, that WANTED to give the child a good home? Also, as I've posted in threads previously, what exactly is better for a child, having hetero parents, or having an greater economic status? It's kind of an apples-to-oranges argumen, but I think it's reasonable, since, if we're to consider "scientific" data, then I would imagine having rich parents is better than having poor ones, so perhaps children should only go to wealthy families--but, then what about how a poor hetero couple compares to a well-to-do gay couple? Which data trumps the other?

Sure, you could say my argument is invalid, because you could romanticize, and say that money doesn't matter, and that what's more important is that the child is loved. But if that is so, then love by gay parents is just as important as love by non-gay parents.

loveforall -- interesting choice of monikers, that -- whether a child is better off in one type of household than another is not a reason to legislate some kinds of parenting being OK while others not. That is the fundamental problem with Prop 8: it deigns to tell people what they can and can't do with their legitimate feelings. I don't believe that homosexuality is a choice, and I don't believe there is valid "science" on the other side of that issue. But if we only want the best for children, what about all the single parent households, or the ones where no biological parent is available, or where the child is raised by two non-married same-sex people? In your world, shouldn't only wealthy people raise children? And if you want something to get moralistic about, why not rail against military recruiters preying on children in middle and high schools, or children not having health care coverage thanks to Bush vetoing S-Chip? Why work so hard to pass Prop H8 when children are suffering far more because of poverty than because (if at all) of the gender of the adults in their households?

The definition of marriage doesn't guarantee anything about how the children will be cared for, assuming there are children. Nor does the legislation purport to deal with the issues of adoption or child care, and that's a good thing, because it would mean yet more unwarranted intrusion. Even accepting your argument -- which I don't -- all people within a group can't and shouldn't be denied fundamental rights because some within the discriminated-against "class" do not exercise them to someone else's standard.

Your words:
"The point is, that some people will live a gay lifestyle, and it has no bearing on their ability to...raise children." As I said, there is enough data now available to make the case that this is not true. Quoting from one study (since you wanted me to provide data): David Popenoe, a prominent sociologist, gives some reasons: “Study after study supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is key for human development and that the contribution of mothers and fathers to child rearing is each unique and irreplaceable. Children raised in homes with a mother and a father perform better in every measurable way, academically, behaviorally, etc.”

Now we can debate that...but if you accept it as true, then...

You cannot set the rules based on the thousands of exceptions to the ideal. Placing children into a situation that is less than the ideal is wrong. Your words, "whether a child is better off in one type of household than another is not a reason to legislate some kinds of parenting being OK while others not". I competely disagree. This is EXACTLY why it should be legislated. To protect children from the political agenda of a group, who would place children in a less than ideal situation.

Now, can gays provide loving homes. Of course. Is it the ideal for children? No, not according to those that have studied it.

As you point out, there are many other situations that are not ideal for children. What are rules for those? Ok, we will get to those. But for now we can talking about this one.

You asked me for a reason why I voted for 8. I gave you one. Would you like some more?

Yes, loveforall, I would like to see you come up with a single sound reason to discriminate against gay marriage. Until you're ready to take away children from single-parent households, from households where the only "parents" are of the same gender -- however they're related -- and until we are ready to decree that there is only one correct way to raise a child -- not study it, but decree that that is the only right way and the only legal way -- then keep the hell out of people's personal lives. You admit that gays can provide loving homes. It is not up to the state to declare only one way to raise a child, and if it said only two-parent, hetero households are lawful, then the state has to get ready to start carting off a whole host of children. . . to where?

I'll bet there are stats that say that parents above, say, 28, are generally better at both staying together and raising their children responsibly than those who are 18. Should we ban marriage between heteros until 28, or some age in that range? Or should we just bar them from having or adopting kids until then? And what if they have them anyway?

What if there are stats that say that people of certain religions turn out "better" -- more conventionally successful, well-adjusted, less crime-prone -- children than other religions. Should we prevent those statistically "inferior" religious people from marrying and/or having or adopting children? Do you see yet how ridiculous it is for the proponents of Prop H8 to draw this arbitrary and discriminatory line?

What I'm saying here is the state should stay the heck out of this, and let the basic privacy rights of people prevail, rather than have the government, or a tyrannical majority, tell people who they can or can't marry.

Prop 8 has no relevance to raising children. People will raise children (whether by pregancy or adoption), regardless of their sexual orientation. Prop 8 will make no difference in this regard. So using children as a reason makes no sense.

And sadly some parents will be unfit for childrearing even though they are heterosexual.

Where's the study on comparing the child abuse according to their parents sexual orientation? Would heterosexuals be in the majority? If so, should heterosexuals be banned from having children.

Silly logic but not any sillier than voting for prop 8 to protect children.

Article is spot on--this elitism against "Yes" voters harks to days of poll taxes and literacy tests for black voters.

ahem, what are you talking about? It's the "yes" voters, like those who favored poll taxes, literacy tests and for that matter, discrimination in housing in California -- the last time before Prop 22 that California decided to take a vote on hate or exclusion -- who are trying to deny people a fundamental right that most enjoy, and many abuse. People who are in favor of that exclusion or discrimination should be called out on that and made to explain. It's not about children, it's not about being taught something in school, it's not about preserving the sanctity of hetero marriage, which will survive, for better or worse. It's about privacy and intimacy that is truly none of the government's business, and people who don't like what consenting others are doing in the privacy of their homes and relationships should stay out of it rather than force others to adhere to their idea of morality.

JoeHill your case is not against anything I wrote--I mentioned nothing of children, and I have never though the law defined hetero marriage.

What I am referring to is the original article above--the intolerance of (some) No on Prop 8 people v. Yes.

Some claim this is a corollary to the '60's Civil Rights Movement, but Dr. King always said "love your enemy," never resorting to derogatory language.

@LFM

"You cannot set the rules based on the thousands of exceptions to the ideal. Placing children into a situation that is less than the ideal is wrong. Your words, "whether a child is better off in one type of household than another is not a reason to legislate some kinds of parenting being OK while others not". I competely disagree. This is EXACTLY why it should be legislated. To protect children from the political agenda of a group, who would place children in a less than ideal situation."

You are confusing the issue, by bringing up a conspiracist theory of a "political agenda". Since I realize how easy it is to type where your thoughts take you, I won't delve on it.

"Now, can gays provide loving homes. Of course. Is it the ideal for children? No, not according to those that have studied it."

You decry the use of "exceptions", and speak of "ideal", but you draw your concept of what is best based on David Popenoe's work. He actually did not say "study after study", but that the "burden of social science" supported gender-differentiated parenting. Unfortunately, he also goes on to confuse the issue with repeating the finding of a Child Development journal, that "children of parents who are sex-typed are more 'competent'." Gender roles are social constructs, *based* on physical sex, but IMO, no restricted by such. (BTW, do you have a reference, for the "better in every measurable way" comment. I'd like to see what that study was about.)

As it is, I take the conclusion of any "study" with a grain of salt. All adults should understand the danger of dealing with statistics, and scientists need to be very aware of publishing their test criteria. In regards to the "ideal" and family situations, it's not really possible to know what is or isn't, unless EVERY case is the same, with ONE difference, which is being studied.

LFA, you should also take more care with your responses. I understand the difficulty, but your posts are starting to mix replies to myself, and Mr. Hill. I never asked for your reason for voting "YES" on Prop 8, and even though you've given it, I still find it less than thought out, and far more emotionally based.

The fact of the matter is, almost no families are perfect, certainly not judging by every family I've ever known, and for the government to say that gay parents are worse than straight ones is simply ridiculous. You may keep it as your opinion, and "scientists" may attempt to prove it one way or the other, but even they fall victim to influencing the results. And of course, the belief that same-sex parentage is perfectly acceptable is MY opinion, but I also see that in the abscence of the "ideal", then "acceptable" is more likely to be "good".

Wow, equus_posteriori, thank you so much for your reasoned, researched, thoughtful and kind response. You are a breath of fresh air. And you are right, I do get typing and probably do tend to drift.
I will dig up my references on what I have read about the clear benefits to children of gender differentiated parenting. And I stand by my statement that, in my opinion, it is wrong to place children at an immediate disadvantage in a same gender situation. And I do disagree that it is "ridiculous" for government to get involved in that. In my view, even as a conservative, that IS a proper role for government. To protect children.

The basic dynamic at work with referendums such as Prop. 8 is that people on the Right (Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives or whatever monicker they are using this month) insist that the government (even though they generally HATE government) should be deeply involved in legislating morality, while moderates and progressives want no such thing.

Who knows why people right-of-center think the bedroom and private homes of citizens are the one area Big Brother should be omnipotent? Like the school hall monitors they all are at heart, no one should being havin' fun when they aren't havin' none. "Leave my guns alone but stop the gays!"

The patron saint of Republican social engineering is George W. Bush and look at how well that worked.

I've never understood why folks have a problem "legislating morality". ALL of our basic legislation has it's roots in moral principles. For example, is it wrong to kill someone? Our morals say, yes that's wrong, so we pass a law against killing people. Is it wrong to steal? Our morals say, yes that's wrong, so we pass a law against stealing. I doubt that its true that liberals want "no such thing". By the way, I've just named two of the ten commandements, in case you want to argue that religion should not be involved in our laws either.

Our entire legal system is founded on the morals of the majority. So, through the intitiative process, we find out what the "morals" of the majority are relating to marriage between one man and one woman and viola, Prop 8 gets passed. A majority in California and 43 other states thinks thats how marriage should be defined. So, that is how it is defined. That is how a democracy works.

LFA, The Constitution and the courts are there to protect against the tyranny of the majority. It wasn't that long ago when states outlawed mixed-race marriages -- because that was the racist way marriage was "defined" in a lot of states. Forty-odd years ago, the California Supreme Court had to strike down an initiative that passed saying that discrimination in housing was just fine. Some states make certain sex positions engaged in in private between consenting adults illegal; do you think it's OK for the government to go into people's bedrooms and tell them how (not) to have sex? What about all the people who think that this is a Christian nation, and freak out when a Congressman takes a ceremonial (not the actual) oath of office on the Koran? Or a preacher who says that anyone who voted for Obama can't take communion? There is a constitutional amendment prohibiting the state from establishing religion. Government should not be in the business of telling people who (among adults) they can and can't marry, how (or whether) they can worship, how they can recreate (as long as no one is harmed), or what they can or should read or watch on the tube. It is really not so much the prohibition against "legislating morality" as it is the flip side we're concerned about: keeping our freedoms intact.

That explains why killing and stealing are wrong (and illegal) -- in part because those acts deprive people of basic fundamental rights; how does denying gays the right to marry enhance the body politic, as opposed to doing the opposite?

Loveforall:

"ALL of our basic legislation has it's roots in moral principles. For example, is it wrong to kill someone? Our morals say, yes that's wrong, so we pass a law against killing people. Is it wrong to steal? Our morals say, yes that's wrong, so we pass a law against stealing."

There is a logical basis to these laws as well. Murder and stealing are both harmful to innocent people. Often, our morals lead us to logical conclusions. For instance, it is impossible to determine that one person or group of people is inherently superior to another, so we make laws that defend equality. Our Constitution is based on this type of Enlightenment logic. Problems arise when morals lead us to illogical conclusions. The Yes on 8 campaign, and the sentiments surrounding it, are based entirely on religious morality, and not solid logic.