M.O.F. (Mom of Franz), you make some very valid arguments and I will attempt to answer them, point by point.
Please don't think I'm being snide, rude, disrespectful, sancitimonious, arrogant, snotty, snippity, mean, hateful or whatever other adjective.
Your arguments are well reasoned, I just don't agree with some of them, although I do respect you REASONABLE tone and non-condecending approach.
|First of all since from the time this nation was formed a small body of men, and some women have always decided what is law. We elect these people who make the laws, or someone who is elected by us appoints them.
However, I would submit that the Mass Supream Court doesn't have the right to decide for the other 49 states, which is exactly what they tried to do in that case.
Especially since the voters of Ohio stated overwhelmingly that gay marriage is a no-go in Ohio as a direct result of the Mass Supream court ruling.
|A majority of nine individuals (The US Surpreme Court) have decided many laws that may not have been popular with the majority of the public at the time. Brown v. The Board of Education, Dred Scott, and Row v. Wade are just a few.
Yes, that is the UNITED STATES SUPREAM COURT
, a far cry from the Mass Supream court, I think you're comparing apples to oranges.
The U.S. Supream court slapped down the Florida Supream court and does so to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals on an almost daily basis, you rarely see one state supream court over-ruling another.
If the Ohio supream court finds either one of these rulings out of order, they will rule accordingly.
|How does the right for me to marry a woman change your life? Not an iota. It seems the only people who worry about all this are either blatent homophobes, or forgive the pun, closeted homophobes.
I think you're wrong there.
A great majority of people do not/will not accept a homosexual relationship as "the norm", the legalization of gay marriage is, in my opinion twofold:First, it is an attempt to "mainstream" that which most choose to reject as not
being mainstream and second, perhaps most importantly, it is for the financial benifits.
What is to stop it at same-sex unions, multiple partners, minors, the list is endless.
What is more, there are those who do not want their children introduced to this lifestyle until they, as parents feel the kid is ready to accept or understand it. The schools under pressure from advocacy groups and teachers unions cave in and place the agenda of others into the lesson plan and the parents are usually the last to know.
That does cause some problems.
Also, and this is an observation here, it seems that the gay community does the loudest screaming about "tolerance", however when it comes to dealing with those who disagree with them, they somehow forget to practice what they themselves preach by calling those who disagree with them as "bigots", "Hatemongers"
That isn't very tolerant, so how can anyone who engages in such tactics expect to be respected in return?
Now, let's take the term "homophobe"
To have a "phobia" means to have an unreasonable
fear of something/someone.
Make no mistake-the day has not, nor will it ever
come that I'm afraid of someone who is gay. To imply that i'm afraid of someone who is gay because I disagree with their position is to fool (or flatter) one's self.
M.O.F., I don't know/care if you are gay, none of my business, not my concern-but I would tell you this:
The gay community does enough damage to it's own cause in many of their public events by those who reinforce every sterotype that puts the gay community in a bad light.
Men dressed in womens underwear, dancing in front of CSPAN cameras on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. for example is a heck of a thing to come across when you're channel surfing.
That sets the cause of gay rights back, not forward. I can assure you that there are some in congress who have their own "preferences" but they certainly won't get their agendas anywhere by pulling the same stunts.
Perception is politics.
People are more inclined to listen to well reasoned, well though out cases like the one's you have put forth here.
We may not agree on this point, but your calm, non-vitriolic mannerisim will command respect, attention and a fair consideration of your point of view, so long as you can respect mine.
To your next statement:
|Now to the issue of hate crimes v. assualt. Hate crimes target particular individuals or groups. Hate crimes are crimes against a certain portion of humanity. Hitler, for example was King of the hate crime. Assault, like your typical mugging, is random, the mugger does not care if you are gay or let's say black, he only cares that you have enough bucks in your wallet. IMO, rape should be considered a hate crime, because obviously the criminal is targeting those who happen to have a vagina--WOMEN. And yes, men can be raped, but just like in domestic violence the vast majority of the victims are women and girls
So you're in favor of giving one crime victim more standing than another? How does that solve anything and isn't that discriminating against the victim who isn't in the "protected" class?
If someone kills two people, one victim is gay, the other is not, does the murderer get more time for killing the gay person?
Doesn't that marginalize the person who is not gay? Afterall, they're just as dead by the same hand, aren't they?
But to the hate crimes idea, their murder isn't as significant as the murder of the person who was gay.
As this argument relates to the thread we're discussing,
So here you are on one hand asking for equality on the one hand with supporting gay marriage, but on the other hand, you want someone's sexual preference or gender to give them more standing when a crime has been committed against them.
Others may disagree with me, but that strikes me as inconsistant.
As this relates to the Ohio case, it seems to me that the Judge followed the law and since the people of Ohio voted in favor of the gay marriage ban, one sort of fouled up the other and the judge ruled accordingly.
Ohio seems to have some work to do on this one and I hope that they get it squared up, although it looks like this particular coward got a pass.
On the bright side, Ohio does have a lot
of "Good 'ol Boys" and if the victim of this assault has a brother or two, maybe aforementioned dirtbag will get his due-We can only hope.