The American heartland

[Trevorum]

As America's heartland changes, so will the rest of the country. Slowly but surely, change is inevitable.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/04/03/ST2009040303761.html

 

And eventually, BSA will also need to change to reflect the changing values of society. Like it or not, it's gonna happen.

[scoutldr]

1941: I have a few Japanese friends and classmates. I have a hard time visualilzing them as evil.

 

1962: I have a few black friends and classmates. I have a hard time visualizing them as evil.

 

1970: I have a few hippie friends and classmates. I have a hard time visualizing them as evil.

 

2009: I have a few gay and atheist friends and colleagues. I have a hard time visualizing them as evil.

 

I am a Scouter. Do they think I'm evil?

[Kahuna]

>>BSA will also need to change to reflect the changing values of society

[GernBlansten]

Nor should the courts reflect the values of the society.

They should interpret the laws. Period.

Its the representative government that should reflect the values of society.

[John-in-KC]

And, oh by the way, the values of society are not the values of God.

 

Besides, to quote the song from Dr Demento...

 

I owe a lot...

to Iowa Pot...

Iowa grown and grand

I never knew

Such beautiful boo

Grew in this groovy land I was born in

 

And I am indebted indeed

To Magical weed

Iowa grown and grand,

OH...

I owe a lot

to Iowa pot

and that's not just Iowa Corn...

I owe a lot

to Iowa pot

and that's

not

just

Iowaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Cornnnnnnnnnnnnn...

 

With apologies to Dr Demento and Napoleon XIV

(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[Kahuna]

>>They should interpret the laws. Period

[GernBlansten]

It seems that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional without amending the state constitutions. Doesn't that seem to be an indicator that the bans perhaps are not good for all Americans?

[vol_scouter]

Gern,

 

I think that it more a reflection of the times rather than what is good or bad to some group. When most (though not all) state constitutions were written, it was unthinkable for two homosexuals admit it publicly. The thought of homosexual marriage was essentially inconceivable so the constitutions were not written with that in mind. I agree that the laws ought to be interpreted as the writers intended to the best of the court's ability. Such issues as these should be decided by the voters.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I disagree, vol_scouter; if people are going to write "All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens" into their state constitution, don't be surprised if the courts say that it really MEANS that, and strikes down laws which violate that clause.

[scottteng]

Every time the gay marriage thing is placed on the ballot it goes down in flames. Even in the Peoples Republic of California it is wildly unpopular. Judges always seem to be the ones that are forcing it on unwilling populations. An alternative lets get government out of the marriage business. Most non gay people are choosing not to marry anyhow. I see some that still are not married after four kids together. Leave marriages to the churches exclusively then if gays want to be married they just start their own church. Look at all the divorce destruction we could save as well.

[John-in-KC]

Actually, there's a group in California who wants to get California out of the marriage business. The governmental institution of joining anyone will be called Civil Union. Those who choose to have the ceremony solemnized in a church will have a wedding.

 

Their proposal is to have the state do a "search and replace:" Wherever law or regulation says marriage, it will be changed to read civil union.

 

They're in the process of gathering signatures for an initiative now. I wish them well, it's something I can live with. Get Government out of the marriage business.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Mixed-race marriages were forced on an unwilling public by the courts, too. When the Loving decision was announced, about 2/3rds of the population thought interracial marriage should be illegal. This isn't anything new at all.

[packsaddle]

In some states, racial integration was forced by the courts. I remember it well.

[Kahuna]

While it's true that interracial marriage and other racial civil rights issues were forced in most cases by courts, there is an essential difference. In the case of race, there is an Equal Protection issue based upon witholding rights from a class of people based upon their race. In the gay marriage cases, there is no Equal Protection issue. Gay people have the same rights as anyone else. NO person can marry a person of the same sex. Other marriages are forbidden as well. NO person can marry an animal, a sibling or more than one other person.

 

I don't much care either way whether gays can marry, but legally it isn't the same issue.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

You don't seem to have read the court opinion; it was largely based on the Iowa constitution's equal protection clause (which I excerpted earlier in this thread).

 

PS: By the way, arguments against interracial marriage tried to use the same rationale; since white people could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks, the law already WAS equal, and so "NO person could marry a person of a different race." The courts didn't buy it then, and they aren't buying it now.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)