May 19, 2008
Discuss Monday's editorials
Gay marriage remains far from Virginia
California becomes the second state to uphold constitutional equality for same-sex couples.
Americans who passionately oppose same-sex marriage will use last week's California Supreme Court decision overturning that state's ban as a rallying point for upcoming elections. They will be right about one thing: The California decision is bigger than one state. It is part of the slow trudge toward equality for all citizens.
Read more.
No need for partisanship
Roanoke should seek permission to hold municipal elections without party influence.
Quick, what do Democrats think about greenways, parking garages and trolleys? OK, now what do Republicans think about mountaintop restaurants, amphitheaters and flood control? Don't know? Neither does anyone else. These issues, the typical things to come before Roanoke City Council, don't fit neatly into either party's platform.
Read more.
Comments
[May 19, 2008 9:09 AM]
HenryDidn't the CA Supreme Court overturn a decision by the voters to ban gay marriage?
[May 19, 2008 9:38 AM]
c. trejbalOf course they did; the voters passed an unconstitutional law. That's one of the joys of the ballot initiative system. Voters can jump on an unconstitutional bandwagon just like lawmakers.
Before a ballot measure appears before voters, there is no formal test of constitutionality. Gather enough signatures, and you can put a ballot measure up that would declare Buddhism the official religion of the state. The high court would toss that one, too, if voters decided to approve it.
[May 19, 2008 10:11 AM]
HenryUnless the judges wanted Buddhism to be the official religion. Then they could make it so whether the people voted or not.
If the CA Supreme Court decided that wife-beating was allowed, the desires of the people would be irrelevant.
[May 19, 2008 11:27 AM]
JohnFour CA judges overturned a referendum overwhelmingly passed (60-40) by the people of CA, one of the most liberal states. It is my understanding that there is a strong movement (over 1m signatures already) to place a referendum on the CA ballot this Fall to override the court with a state constitutional amendment which is expected to pass. This does not sound like a major change in the collective beliefs of our society to me.
[May 19, 2008 2:17 PM]
HERB KREBSUncontitutional. Trejbal, give me a break. Your left wing agenda didnt work here and its not going to work in California. The voters will vote to amend to CA. constitution and that will be the end of this matter.
This country was built by the people and that means the majority vote. Period. At one time slavery was excepted, I never excepted it, but the people overturned it. Why dont you left wing nut jobs stop using the courts to forward your agenda. When the time comes and the people say it's allowed then it will happen.Until then suck it up and deal with the american voters. That is what this is about the American people not legislative Judges.
[May 19, 2008 4:37 PM]
JoshI don't understand this comparison between interracial and same-sex marriage. Marriage is defined by sexual intercourse. Homosexual couples, whatever activities they do, are incapable of intercourse. They don't have the equipment. Sorry. A parrot can bark all day, but that doesn't make it a dog.
Heterosexual marriage is the basic most stable relationship couples can have. Homosexual relationships are not nearly as durable or stable as marriage between a man and woman, studies show, and as such are not suitable for child-rearing. Straight marriage gets the insurance benefits and tax breaks because it alone can create children AND has the longevity track record to raise those children in the stablest environment possible.
There is nothing bigoted at work; it's just the way human beings and social systems operate.
[May 19, 2008 7:14 PM]
deanYou need to check your resources again about heterosexual marriage being stable. Look at the divorce rate in American amoung a man and a woman.
Divorce is killing traditional marriage. Not same sex couples. Divorces are harder on children then you think,I know from experience seein my parents split at a young age.
Who cares, if same sex marriages want partner benifets and security when they get old and the other one dies.
Hate in American is a big issue, and a problem.
[May 19, 2008 8:25 PM]
WillI doubt seriously that anyone can say that a marriage between a male and female versus a marriage between a same sex couple has a greater or lesser propensity to succeed. Studies indicate today that the divorce rate between heterosexual couples is at or around 50% now. That doesn't speak to much stability to me.
That being said though, the notion that providing the same benefits afforded to opposite sex couples to same sex couples in some way undermines two people's desire to marry, have children and raise them is laughable.
I don't care what two people, be them gay or straight, do in the privacy of their home. I do believe that if two people in this day and time can find happiness with each other and the rest of their families, then more power to them.
I think if people would spend a little more time working toward a common good as opposed to magnifying differences that really don't make a tinker's damn to anyone, we'd be a whole lot better off.
[May 19, 2008 10:26 PM]
Blue JohnBeing a person that is happily divorced, I say get a puppy.
[May 19, 2008 10:52 PM]
JoshWill and Dean,
If you're going to open up taxpayer-funded benefits to "married" gay couples, by what rationale could you keep ANY group of 2 or more from claiming a right to "marriage" and the attendant government benefits?
As for the "50% divorce rate" liberals throw around? Pure fiction. Urban legend.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm
[May 20, 2008 8:46 AM]
AJLOL. Josh and Henry are two peas in a pod...
[May 20, 2008 9:52 AM]
HenryIt's really hard to argue with AJ's hard hitting commentary on the issues that affect our world.
[May 20, 2008 9:53 AM]
JackDidn't they also overturn a handgun ban? It was unconstitutional, too.
[May 20, 2008 9:55 AM]
Jack"If the CA Supreme Court decided that wife-beating was allowed, the desires of the people would be irrelevant."
Not necessarily... the CA Supreme Court isn't the end all be all.
[May 20, 2008 10:37 AM]
L. TraudWhat if the people decided wife beating is legal? Should the court concur?
[May 20, 2008 10:56 AM]
AJI don't pretend to have anything profound to say here. But I sure get a chuckle from those that do.
And now that I think about it, when I have offered my opinion recently, it was you, Henry, that threw out an off-handed, dismissive remark with no real response to what I had said.
By the way, Mr. Krebs seems to fit right in that pea pod, too..
LOL
[May 20, 2008 11:50 AM]
Henry"What if the people decided wife beating is legal? Should the court concur?"
Wife beating is allowed in this country and the courts agreed with the verdict. Wife beating is allowed if the beating is consentual. It was a case out west somewhere involving "sexual spanking". I believe there was another case involving spanking as a method of discipline but I can't remember the details.
The courts can allow some strange stuff. What will we do if the Utah Supreme Court decides to allow polygamy?
[May 20, 2008 8:50 PM]
WillJosh...
As for the 50% rate being an urban legend, take a look at the following link: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm.
From the Federal Government Department of Health and Human Services, as of the year 2005 (seems to be most recent numbers available) the marriage rate was 7.5 per 1000 people and the divorce rate was 3.6 per 1000 people. If my HP17b calculator is correct, 3.6 divided by 7.5 is exactly 50%.
Not sure what you're talking about when you say "GROUP of 2 or more" unless you're talking about some of the polygomists that are practicing.
Tax benefits, health insurance benefits and any other benefits should never be defined by a state of marriage but should be defined by the need they are serving.
[May 21, 2008 7:26 AM]
JoshWill,
You're late to the party. Christian tried the same link in another thread yesterday, and it's already been shot down with no rebuttal:
http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/national_politics/americas_divorce_rates.html#comments
[May 21, 2008 8:02 AM]
WillJosh...
Not sure why you say it's been "shot down". I still contend that the rate whether it be 50% or 40% as some of your sources indicate, it's still not very stable at the hetero side of things.
Kids today need a loving caring environment, one that teaches respect for themselves and each other. After watching a TLC show last evening and listening to a 4.0 student say that he believes that cheating is okay to get ahead today, I'm wondering what values hetero couples are really teaching today.
[May 21, 2008 8:06 AM]
SamOpen up tax-payer funded benefits?
You mean like the right to visit your spouse or family member when they are in the hospital, and the right of survivorship upon death?
How much are these benefits costing taxpayers these days?
Furthermore, why should these rights be restricted to married couples anyway?
[May 21, 2008 8:52 AM]
JoshWill,
The 50% argument was shot down because it was proven untrue.
The two estimates my source listed range from 11 to 34% of past marriages ending in divorce.
[May 21, 2008 1:27 PM]
WillJosh...
Even at 11% to 34%, still not a very good statistic IMHO.
Please provide your source for disproving the original number from the Department of Health and Human Services or the U.S. Census Bureau.
They are generally known to be the more reliable of statistical gathering sources.
[May 22, 2008 10:19 AM]
Josh"Please provide your source for disproving the original number from the Department of Health and Human Services or the U.S. Census Bureau."
Will. Did you listen? The error comes not from the stastics, but their interpretation. I'll again link you to where I explained it, and where Christian was unable to dispute it.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/national_politics/americas_divorce_rates.html#comments
If you notice, the editors rarely dispute my posts anymore. It's something like Redskins' opponents not throwing to Darrell Green's side during the 80's.
[May 22, 2008 10:27 AM]
c. trejbalTake heart, Will. Mathematics still works.