Guy Alcala wrote:

A few final responses to your comments.

And shouldn't be able to, for the same reason you can't put up a nativity scene. Alternatively,
anything goes, and anyone can put up anything they want, provided they pay for it. The problem
is, at some point someone is going to object to something that's there or say that there's not
enough space for something new, a public official will try to decide what's okay and what isn't
or what is more worthy of space, and the line has been crossed. Can Satan worshippers put up
what they want? How about followers of Santeria; nothing like a nice animal sacrifice to help
you solve big problems.

Neonazi's can put up their flags and go goose stepping through
neighborhoods in Milwaukee. KKK types have their little public
exercises. Why not satan worshipers (if they don't already)?

Sacrifices? Well I'm not in favor of such a thing, but I'm
apparently not allowed to think poorly of gays on a religious
basis, and the social basis is currently under modification from
its previous definition. Perhaps sacrifice will gain social
acceptance too with proper argument and effort?

Every group pushes its rights. I personally feel any of the above
are not good things for society, both on a social basis, and on a
religious one. The "rights" issue in justifying behavior, or
promoting it, is a slippery slope environment. But it has always
been so, and the dynamics of pro and con are part of the political
discourse of the nation. Nothing to be feared or avoided.

"In God We Trust" may be part of your culture, but it's no part of mine since I'm not religious.
Are you saying that your culture is officially approved? And no, it doesn't belong on the money,
any more than the Masonic symbols do.

You do not have the constitutional right to be free of offense.
"In God We Trust" has gone beyond pure religious meaning. It's
now cultural, just like no one should prohibit Christmas trees or
Santa Claus images simply because they have christian origins or
bindings. It's like a cross on top of a church. It's in the
public space, but anyone who doesn't like christianity (or religion)
and is offended by the symbol just has to live with it.
(Personally, anyone "offended" by any of the major religious
symbols of the world is in need of a civility or diversity course!)

Living in the SF Bay Area, and having spent a lot of time (while growing up) in the People's
Republic of Berkeley, I early came to the conclusion that what consenting adults wish to do is
their business, provided I'm not forced to participate. I dislike many things that my fellow
human beings choose to do, but if it doesn't injure me, what business is it of mine? I've got
gay friends, relatives of friends, co-workers, acquaintances, etc. I judge them on what kind of
human being they are; why should I care what gender they sleep with?

Well we all judge people by different criteria. If you are seriously
religious, homosexuality is abomination and not to be tolerated.

How do you feel about polygamy? How do you feel about sex between
a 14 year old girl and a 30 year old man (or two 14 year olds for
that matter)? Are they bad humans? Is their behavior bothering
you? Why limit them on your definition of social appropriateness
any more than a religious one? In much of the world, humans are
adults at 13-15 and can marry. Our 18 and 21 year old definitions
are wholly arbitrary and artificial.

Personally, I think the simplest solution would be for government to get out of the marriage
business altogether, and just perform civil unions for everyone. The civil benefits of
'marriage' should apply to all who wish to take it on, regardless of what it's called. If
marriage is primarily a religious exercise, then religions should be the ones to conduct them,
and they can set any standards for what is and is not a marriage that they choose, as they do
now; parishioners will vote with their feet to find a religion that suits them best, just as they
always have (when not forced to adhere to a particular one).

My views are similar. I feel "marriage" is already "copyrighted",
if you will, by religion. City Hall should only give out civil union
licenses (perhaps to polygamists as well???). However a certificate
of union should not be easy to undo. It should take all the legal
effort and expense of a divorce.

That wasn't the pandering. The pandering was making a political calculation about whether to
come out and openly support such an amendment, or whether to just continue to make vague
statements that could be interpreted to mean anything or nothing, because it was felt the latter
was politically safer. Given the catalyst of the marriages in SF, and their clear understanding
that the equal protection clauses of both the California and Federal Constitutions will toss out
defense of marriage acts (as happened in Mass.), His religious base really put the pressure on
for Bush to take an unequivocal stand. The political calculation was clearly made that he'd lose
a lot of his base if he didn't do so, and not gain many converts on the other side, so he did it
despite his obvious wish to finesse the whole issue (much as the democratic leadership also
wished to do). That is totally separate from his personal beliefs on the subject, which seem to
be fairly live and let live.

Nothing the democrats aren't doing. This is treacherous political
stuff, especially for dems. You need to pay lip service to gay
rights, but polls tell you majorities aren't in favor of it and
feel rather strongly about it. What to do?

I define pandering as a sort of demagoguery, waiting to figure out
what direction is politically best for you before acting. No
personal beliefs or ideals involved whatsoever. Just telling
people what they want to hear.

I just checked the Webster definition of "pander". It's catering
to or exploiting the weaknesses of others, so I feel confident
that Bush isn't doing this, on this particular issue, as it is
truly his own personal conviction AFAICT.

Avoid trying to legislate purely personal behavior, no matter how much the majority may
disapprove of it.

We legislate personal behavior *all the time*. In fact that's
pretty much what our body of laws is all about!

Guess I've overstayed my welcome on this issue here at r.a.m, so
I'll close by saying I've enjoyed reading your comments. You've
made me think a bit, even though my attitudes haven't really
changed. Thanks for the comments.


SMH