tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post116221940755647999..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Exhibit B in the case for YesRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1162327574627883222006-10-31T14:46:00.000-06:002006-10-31T14:46:00.000-06:00"The purpose of this amendment is not to beat up o..."The purpose of this amendment is not to beat up on gay people so get over it."<BR/><BR/>True. The purpose of the amendment is to manipulate the people to try to encourage right wingers to come out in droves and vote for republicans. If you don't believe that, ask John Gard, Mark Gundrum, and Scott Fitgerald why they delayed the vote. The bonus is that it beats up on gay people-- the only minority that people like Rick think don't deserve equal legal protections in our constitution. Only SURPRISE, turns out the electorate is not as dumb as the Republicans thought, and the polls showed the proposal was having the opposite of the intended effect. So, what should a party do... Hmmm. I know, let's add a death penalty referendum!<BR/><BR/>If you believe this is remotely about the "sanctity of marriage" or "protection of marriage," you are sorely mistaken. No one has ever been divorced because gay people want to protect their families.<BR/><BR/>As for the effects of this legislation, you like to talk about the effect in other states that have passed similar amendments. Let's chat for a bit about the other side: states that have provided protections. Lo and behold, the divorce rate is the same as before or decreased. The states did not fall into the ocean. Child abuse and illegitimate births did not rise. The fact of the matter is that you are being used. Rick, in 10 years or less you will be ashamed of your role in this process. I guarantee it.<BR/><BR/>How's that for a coherent "arguement" [sic]?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1162313948602507922006-10-31T10:59:00.000-06:002006-10-31T10:59:00.000-06:00They have not "been used" to limit protections. Th...They have not "been used" to limit protections. They have been used, by some, to try and limit protections and have been almost completely unsuccessful. No court has denied benefits to anyone. Two (out of ten) courts in Ohio have said that Ohio's amendment affect's Ohio's domestic violence law but, based on differences between the dv law in Ohio and Wisconsin, there is simply no chance that will happen here. The argument that was made in Ohio is not available here.<BR/><BR/>Todd is correct in noting that I struggled with the second sentence, but I have come to believe that the social meaning of marriage can be undermined just as readily - perhaps even more so - by civil unions. <BR/><BR/>As far as the "balding" argument - aside from being a cheap shot - that would be about eugenics and not the meaning of marriage. It would, moreover, be poor eugenics in that 1) the gene for male pattern baldness is typically handed down from the mother (i.e., check out her father) and 2) bald is sexy.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1162310390909492282006-10-31T09:59:00.000-06:002006-10-31T09:59:00.000-06:00AnonPerhaps if you tried hard enough you wouldn't ...Anon<BR/><BR/>Perhaps if you tried hard enough you wouldn't be such a jerk. That is what is wrong with some on the left -you can't come up with a coherent arguement so you personally attack. The purpose of this amendment is not to beat up on gay people so get over it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1162309034358010252006-10-31T09:37:00.000-06:002006-10-31T09:37:00.000-06:00What a load of $^%$. As a lawyer, you know it take...What a load of $^%$. As a lawyer, you know it takes years for these cases to work their way through the system. You also know that in MI and OH and UT, these amendments have been used to limit protections for families. <BR/><BR/>Are you okay with an amendment that says bald guys can't get married because they might pass along the baldness gene? Just because it's in the constituion doesn't mean it would harm you in any way. You can still parent. You just can't get married. If you tried hard enough, your hair would grow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1162233099417922082006-10-30T12:31:00.000-06:002006-10-30T12:31:00.000-06:00I thought the whole point was to keep activist jud...I thought the whole point was to keep activist judges out of it. Now you say we should blindly trust because judges will eventually decide the right way.<BR/><BR/>Which is it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1162232187398651632006-10-30T12:16:00.000-06:002006-10-30T12:16:00.000-06:00Of course, it wasn't a mere lone shark ("someone")...Of course, it wasn't a mere lone shark ("someone") suing in Michigan, it's an activist organization backed by that state's attorney general. And of course, in Ohio, folks backing the abusive boyfriends include Alliance Defense Fund attorneys and Citizens for Community Values, the organization that sponsored their amendment in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Let's review what this very blog has had to say about the second sentence: "I have to admit that I don't much like it." ... "[D]o we really need to say that civil unions cannot be recognized? The amendment goes beyond saying that the constitution does not mandate civil unions to say that they may not be established. I would rather not do this."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com