Merlyn_LeRoy

BrentAllen writes: Unlike Democrats, Republicans will clean their house Are these the same Republicans that changed the House ethics rules to shield Tom DeLay?

Beavah writes: But there's no way around the fact that true homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end and therefore not genetically transmitted, eh? I'll stick with the opinions of real scientists, thanks. You might want to reconsider your pronouncement in the face of genetic diseases that kill before puberty - they can't exist according to your simplistic reasoning.

Like they say, talk is cheap. So far, Hastert has been all talk.

The Soros allegation is from none other than Dennis Hastert, who is very busy pointing fingers at Soros, Democrats, and ABC, while forgetting the adage that he still has three fingers pointing back at himself.

Fred Goodwin writes: The few times that gay marriage "won" was when it was legislated from the bench -- one wonders how exactly *that* is supposed to square with hearing from both sides? The same is true when laws against interracial marriage were struck down; about 2/3rds of the public were against allowing interracial marriage at the time. Most arguments against gay marriage seem to be "because my god doesn't like it", which is only a good reason for that person not to do it.

I haven't tried to deny public access to the BSA or any other group.

Hunt, to match the situation with scouts, the club would allow kids of any religion, except Jews. I don't think many kids would think that's the right thing to do. As for harming recruiting efforts, that seems to be the current situation. But in any case I don't think policies should be set by "whatever increases membership the most."

Yes, absolutely. Why would a kid want to join an organization that keeps some of his friends out? Would a kid with Jewish friends be particularly drawn to join a private club that didn't allow Jewish kids? Why do you think a kid with gay and atheist friends would react any differently to a private club that doesn't allow gay and atheist members? There also doesn't seem to be a lot of support for the BSA's exclusionary policies among the kids who are members.

Hunt writes: If the BSA representative actually said that any boy may join, that simply isn't true, as we all well know. It's not so clear to me what they actually did say, however. The dissent--which thought there was discrimination--simply says that the reps "did not say" that there was a religious requirement. The Oregon supreme court decision here: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S52657.htm#N_1_ ...has a link to Powell v. Bunn near the top, which is here: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A117310.htm Powell v. Bunn has a little more detail: ... The record includes videotapes of four presentations that a Boy Scouts representative made at district schools in fall 2001, after the adoption of the guidelines. In all but one videotape, a district principal, teacher, or administrator first quieted the students and told them to listen to the representative, who then made a short presentation to everyone and invited interested boys to talk with him further, either in the lunch room or outside on the school grounds. In the remaining videotape, the district employee mentioned the representative's presence and availability. In all of the videotapes, the representative spent 15 or more minutes with those boys who came up to talk with him, handing out brochures, answering their questions, and encouraging them to join; at least once the representative told the boys that anyone could join. Keep in mind that Nancy Powell objected to BSA recruiters saying anyone could join back in 1996, and she complained every year, and the above is from 2001, where a BSA rep is still saying anyone could join, five years later. And this: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A108090.htm Plaintiff's son received one of the flyers from his teacher. The flyers consisted primarily of illustrations of boys involved in recreational activities (e.g., playing sports, planting trees, camping, birdwatching, practicing archery, flying kites, and making crafts). In large lettering, they stated "Get in on the Fun" and "You can join now!" In smaller lettering, they read "Tiger Cubs for First Graders," "Cub Scouts for 2nd & 3rd Graders," and "Webelos for 4th & 5th Graders."(12) The next month, two Boy Scouts representatives obtained permission from the Harvey Scott Elementary School principal to provide information to students during the lunch hour about joining Cub Scouts. A school staff member supervising the students in the cafeteria introduced the representatives, after which the representatives spoke briefly. They announced that they were there to provide information about a Boy Scouts membership meeting and that interested boys could raise their hands to receive that information. The representatives described the general kinds of activities involved in scouting but did not touch on anything having to do with religious beliefs or religious activities. The representatives did not hand out any flyers at that time. Rather, the only information they distributed was in the form of wristbands that read: "COME JOIN CUB SCOUT PACK 16! ROUND-UP FOR NEW CUB SCOUTS FOR BOYS IN GRADES 1-5[.] TODAY from 7-8 pm (10-15-96)[.] Scott Elementary School[.] Questions? Call Chrissy Smith @ * * *."

CalicoPenn writes: The issue isn't if the rep from the Scout's lied or not, or even if the Scout's can discriminate - the issue is was the school a party of the discrimination and the court said no. But the decision also seems to say that the school wasn't a party of the discrimination because the BSA rep said it was for all boys, instead of saying that only boys who believe in god can join. ...The court seems to be suggesting that if another, less savory, group decided to make a play for claiming equal access under the equal access statutes, that the school would have no legal means of preventing it - if the BSA can have a mandatory recruiting session during school hours, then the Junior KKK can do the same if it so demands. It appears the court is suggesting to the schools that though they can't be held at fault for outside groups recruiting practices, they should carefully consider if they really want to continue to allow these sessions since it could open them up to demands on school time by other groups. Yep. From a legal standpoint, there isn't much difference. Both are private groups that discriminate in ways public schools can't.

And at the other end of the spectrum, the worst recruiting is probably when their gay & atheist friends are excluded. This will be an issue as long as scouts have gay & atheist friends.

Ed, atheist boys can't join, so "any boy may join" is not true.

Ed, you keep pretending the BSA rep said "any boy who meets the membership requirements can join"; what he said was "any boy" may join.

Ed, the court ruling says the BSA rep said "any boy" may join, NOT "any boy who meets the requirements". This also came out during court testimony; the BSA rep said that any boy could join, with no suggestion that there was any sort of religious belief requirement. I suppose you'd consider a KKK rep who said "any boy" can join isn't lying, when it's later revealed that "any boy" who meets the white & Protestant requirements can join. According to the court, the BSA rep said "any boy" can join, without qualifying it the way you keep doing. Yes, saying "any boy may join who meets the requirements" is true, but that ISN'T WHAT THE BSA REP SAID. Got that, Ed? Yes, if the BSA rep had said something different, he wouldn't have lied. But he lied.

Ed, how is "any boy may join" NOT a lie? BSA officials testified in court that Remington could not join because he was an atheist, so the statement "any boy may join" is not true.

Yes Ed, read the ruling: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S52657.htm The BSA rep said "all boys" could join, but the court ruling states that the Boy Scouts require all members to profess a belief in a theistic god. So the BSA rep lied. If the BSA rep hadn't lied, and said that only boys who believe in a god could join, that *would* have violated this law, as that would have discriminated against the students on the basis of religious belief. But since he lied, there was no discrimination on school time, only later.

Yes, the Portland school board prohibited any in-school recruiting, except for military, college, etc recruiters, pretty much as a direct result of the original lawsuit. Also any outside organization that hands out flyers or has notices on the district's web site has to include their non-discrimination policy. Given the odd way the court ruled, it looks like the only reason this recruiting was not ruled as violating the law in question was due to the recruiters deliberately lying by saying any boy could join; if they had been honest, that would have constituted discrimination in the public school setting.

BrentAllen writes: Merlyn, I don't know where anyone said there would be immediate detrimental consequences to traditional marriage from gay marriage. The results from incest may take years to become noticeable. Bad analogy; the "results" of incest can be genetic problems that take years to become apparent. Gay marriage is simply a legal contract between other people. If you can't even come up with a genuine problem with gay marriage in MA for the last 2 years, or gay marriage in the Netherlands for the last 5 years, your scare stories are just that - scare stories with no basis in fact. One of the threats we are concerned about is the expansion of the definition of marriage as I mentioned previously. It may not have happened yet, but are you promising me it never will? If it happens, it will be due to the legalization of interracial marriage, not gay marriage. After all, interracial marriage was another big change, and it's only been about 45 years since Loving v. Virginia. More seriously, gay marriage is not responsible for more of your scare stories about how other things may be changed, no more so than interracial marriage is responsible. And yes, people DID ask back when interracial marriage was an issue if that meant marrying animals was next. Scare stories never change. Loving v. Virginia established that marriage was a right under US law, and you need more than scare stories of what might happen (or, even lamer, what other people might argue next for marriage) to deny people rights. Under your standard, interracial marriage would never be approved because it might lead to horrible consequences. For that matter, using your standard, almost nothing would ever be changed, because any action could result in dire (but completely vague) results. You keep implying that gay marriage would result in something bad happening - so what is it? You say people might argue for the legalization of polygamy, but that's happening now, and started before Massachusettes legalized gay marriage. Your other examples are the usual hysterics over gay marriage. However, I have found a list of 12 reasons to oppose gay marriage: 1 Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural. 2 Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children. 3 Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children. 4 Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful. 5 Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal. 6 Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities. 7 Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America. 8 Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall. 9 Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license. 10 Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children. 11 Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans. 12 Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

Brent writes: If you can't see that you just admitted society encourages gays to enter into sham marriages, then we have nothing further to discuss. That fact is as plain as the nose on your face. Only those who deny gay marriage, and say that gays can already get married are doing that. That's what I've been saying If you say ALL of society is encouraging that, obviously not, since not everyone is against gay marriage, for example. And since you deferred answering about Massachusettes, you're stuck with Dan's answer for now - gay marriage hasn't affected heterosexual marriage. If you still want to assert that there's some dire consequences, bring some real-world examples, not vague scare tactics.

BrentAllen writes: There is no constitutional right to marriage - for anyone. Yes, there is. The US supreme court said marriage was a right under the US constitution in Loving v. Virginia, which threw out laws prohibiting interracial marriage. how has marriage in Massachusettes suffered from legal gay marriage there? It may not have - yet. But let's wait and see what happens. It's been a while - what harm has come to heterosexual marriage in Massachusettes now? Looks like you're admitting that gay marriage in Massachusettes hasn't adversely affected heterosexual marriage. How long before we hear polygamy arguments, It seems to me that there have been polygamy arguments in the US long before gay marriage. And if people do bring it up, why is that the "fault" of gay marriage? Why isn't it the "fault" of allowing interracial marriage, for example? And how does polygamy, or even people just arguing for polygamy, adversely affect heterosexual marriage? Is merely hearing the arguments too distressing for you (and the fault of gays getting married in Massachusettes)? It would be more convincing if you argued against, say, Mormonism to stave off polygamy. After all, Mormon polygamists in Utah actually are challenging laws against polygamy NOW. and those who want to marry their siblings or their pets Just as soon as you can find a pet that can sign a legally binding contract. How will you answer the question about how those marriages hurt traditional marriage? I'm asking YOU how someone else's marriage hurts "traditional" marriage. You say they do, but you are short on details. Like, what affect they have. Are you for allowing them? Polygamy - certainly. Many religions permit them, some even require it under certain circumstances, and there's no convincing reason to disallow it. Everyone involved in such a marriage would have to consent, of course, so you don't have to bother asking what happens if a husband marries a 2nd wife without the consent of the first - since the first wife would also be considered married to the 2nd wife, her consent is needed, too. Siblings shouldn't have offspring due to birth defects from recessive genes, and the main reason for marriage (forming a family) is already present. Pets can't sign contracts, so they can't sign a marriage contract, either. Allowing gay marriage is tinkering with the DNA of our society. The consequences may not be truly known for years. You STILL haven't come up with any harm to "traditional" marriage. The above is just irrational fearmongering, and is hardly sufficient to deny a right like marriage. Come up with some REAL reasons how gay marriage harms "traditional" marriage, or harm society, or SOMETHING. You're batting .000 Now, for my questions. 1)Why do you suppose McGreevey hid his homosexuality? Probably because gays are denegrated by large numbers of people in the US. 2)Would he have been considered just as "pro family" if he had been in a gay marriage, as he was in a hetero marriage? Not in today's society. 3)Why do you suppose most of the gay men in sham marriages decide to enter in to those marriages? Most? I have no idea, you'd have to ask them. Why did Rock Hudson get married? 4)Why do gay men enter in to sham marriages instead of just living with their gay lover? You'd have to ask them. Now, given that I've answered your questions, could you answer this one of mine, finally? How has marriage in Massachusettes suffered from legal gay marriage there? Note that I'm asking 'how HAS it suffered" - no making up future disasterous scenarios, how HAS it suffered AS OF NOW?

So Brent, will you answer my questions? Since: 1) you are against gay marriage, and 2) you are against gays entering into "sham" marriages, it seems you are against gays marrying, period. Should there be a law stating that gays cannot get married? And, by the way, how has marriage in Massachusettes suffered from legal gay marriage there? By the way Ed, I know nothing I say makes sense to you; you still can't understand why public schools can't charter cub scout packs, even though I and many others have repeatedly explained why.

Ed writes: By stating a person must marry someone of the opposite sex isn't suggesting anything - it is a statement of fact. Ed, gays can legally marry in Massachusettes. And I still say that "defenders" of marriage who state that gays CAN marry (just someone of the opposite sex) are encouraging gays to marry someone of the opposite sex, in the same way that anti-miscegenation laws prohibiting interracial marriage encouraged people to marry within their race.

BrentAllen writes: Sounds to me like society in general is encouraging sham marriages, not just those defending traditional marriage. True? No, society in general is encouraging MARRIAGE; the "defenders" of marriage, by saying that gays already have the right to marry (but only someone of the opposite sex) are suggesting that gays enter into sham marriages. So Brent, since: 1) you are against gay marriage, and 2) you are against gays entering into "sham" marriages, it seems you are against gays marrying, period. Should there be a law stating that gays cannot get married? And, by the way, how has marriage in Massachusettes suffered from legal gay marriage there?

BrentAllen writes: My comprehension skills are fine. Your arguments just don't make any sense No, your reading comprehension is faulty. You keep incorrectly reiterating what you think I've said, when I haven't said it. How, exactly, are we encouraging sham marriages? There was no reason for McGreevey to ever get married Sure there is; he's a politician. Being a "family man" gets votes. How did we encourage him to marry? Specifically? There's your reading comprehension problem again. I did not say you are encouraging him to marry. Why couldn't he have just stayed single? Why did he decide to marry a woman he didn't love (twice!) in a sham marriage, instead of just staying single? Somehow, this is the fault of those defending traditional marriage? No, but if you could read what I write, you'd already know. You mean in liberal, open-minded, free-thinking New Jersey, the voters would prefer a married heterosexual over a single gay man - all other issues being the same? Wow! Again, your reading problem rears its head. I only said that McGreevey probably felt that being married would improve his chances. Notice that I didn't make any statement on whether he was "out" or not, so the difference is just between being married and being single. After all this, I have a new reason why gays shouldn't be in Scouting - they aren't honest! Judging an entire class of people for the actions of some, eh? Textbook example of prejudice.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

BrentAllen writes: Defending marriage forces gays in to sham marriages?!?! No; "defending" marriage by saying that gays can already marry (but only someone of the opposite sex) suggests that such sham marriages are just fine with those "defenders of marriage". What law says anyone must get married?? None, of course. But I haven't said that. And I still can't see how denying marriage to gays is "defending" marriage in any way. Are Massachusettes marriages somehow "lesser" now? My observation is gays enter into sham marriages to hide their homosexuality. Many probably do. In the McGreevey case, he probably felt that as a politician, being married would improve his chances at getting elected. If gays were allowed to marry, you are saying all those hiding in sham marriage would suddenly come out of the closet?? You've got to be kidding! I'm not saying that at all; it seems to be your reading comprehension that's the problem. Ed writes: You actually believe that, Merlyn? Ed, if someone who's gay wants to get married, and a "defender" of marriage says they CAN marry, just someone of the opposite sex, yes, they are suggesting that gays enter into such sham marriages. They're saying that gays CAN marry, they just have to marry someone they have no sexual attraction towards.