Posted on 05/15/2012 12:47:14 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The marriage arguments are these:
• It's "unnatural."
• It's contrary to God's will.
• It's about illicit sex, not committed relationships.
• The majority of Americans oppose such marriages.
Sound familiar? They should. They were the arguments posited in 1948 when Andrea Perez, a Mexican American woman, and Sylvester Davis, an African American man, challenged California's interracial marriage ban in the state Supreme Court. The arguments reappeared when miscegenation went to the U.S. Supreme Court 19 years later in Loving v. Virginia.
In each case the plaintiffs won. Today, the arguments continue, but the target is different: gay people. Ascribe whatever facile coating you wish to President Barack Obama's announcement last week in support of gay marriage. It's historically noteworthy – no sitting president has ever endorsed gay marriage – but politically, it's ultimately irrelevant.
A far more reliable arbiter of our future lies in how the present is following a clear pattern from the past. Curiously, opponents of gay marriage don't see this outline, nor do they see that gay marriage, like interracial marriage, is hardly the upheaval they fear it to be.
Just like gay marriage today, interracial marriage was portrayed as an abomination. The dissenting opinions of the day – both legal and popular – repeatedly called the amalgamation of the races unnatural and deplorable. Those who intermarried were considered the "dregs of society."
"If interracial couples have a right to marry," warned one judge, "all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void."
Ah yes, the old slippery slope...
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
The MSM is doing a full court press on gay marriage to provide cover for Obama.
You can almost feel their desperation. Obama is out on a limb and they’ve got to convince the voters not to saw it off behind him. Alas, unfortunately for them, they’ve already blown what little credibility they have, so this is not going to be very effective.
They’re scared. This could very well be the point where historians say Obama lost the election. The beginning of the end.
In an interracial union the people are not doing anything wrong.
As for life insurance it is again obvious their rates would have to equal or even much higher then smokers since their ailment know as AIDS will eventually kill them at a young age. I don't see too many 80 year old homosexuals since they die younger from their ailments and their partner reaps the benefits. Ever purchase life insurance or go to the hospital? After they get your name one of the next questions is do you smoke? It is time both are ask, Do you smoke? Are you gay?
Smoking and being gay are lifestyle choices and both effect one for their entire life and since these are choices maybe it is time the gays start to pay their fair share.
When a queer gets AIDS, they want to be able to have their partner's health plan cover their illness.
Let's see how many queers want to get married if they aren't able to get "spousal" benefits!
I don’t care what names these sick perverts come up with
I have known a lesbian couple in the past. Individually and as a couple they were nice enough. But when it came to Gay Marriage they were very militant about it. What I came to understand is that they wanted society’s recognition of them as a couple and of course society’s approval of them as a couple. Included in that was of course the benefits of all the spousal privileges.
I once asked them why it had to be called Gay Marriage instead of a Civil Union and what I found out is that they wanted to rub the noses of every straight in the shit because of all of the slights both real and imagined that gays have ‘put up with’.
In any case I still don’t approve of gay marriage. Of course a lawyer friend of mine once said that Gay marriage was the holy grail of divorce lawyers. Ka-Ching, Ka-Ching!
Except that gays can’t be homophobic and you can’t tell who is gay. As a matter of fact, liberals say that homophobes are secretly gay so they can’t be homophobic.
I agree. The comparison of homosexual marriage to interracial marriage is a specious argument. An interracial couple can procreate naturally and can play the traditional mother/father roles in the family, neither of which is possible in a homosexual union.
I do not "do" facebook, but one of my daughters told me that a friend from high school who now lives in London was on FB the day of the NC primary urging her friends to go and vote against Amendment 1. Yesterday, an eloquent letter appeared in our local newspaper expressing her disappointment in reading of the outcome of the vote. In it, she made the common mistake that those who are for homosexual marriage make - that this is all about the "right" of homosexuals to be married. Although they do have a right to love whom they chose to love, there is NO constitutional right to be married!
You are right, but let’s not forget all of those in the military looking for base housing, and helth care for their same sex spouses, and what’s that going to cost.?
It is about money.
The first thing to do is to knock down the “homophobic” label.
Disgust at the behavior is NOT a “phobia” or “fear”.
Neither is refusal to endorse the lifestyle or behavior a “phobia”.
Neither is it “hate”.
Start referring to liberals as TRUTHophobics!
...as they FEAR the TRUTH.
Race is immutable.
Same sex attraction is NOT.
Homosex is a behavior NOT a race or ethnicity.
The proof of the disorder is in the plumbing!
THAT makes it “unnatural”!
• It’s “unnatural.”
Ok explain why it is not unnatural?
If human beings were made homosexual instead of heterosexual they would have died out in the first generation....
heterosexual= natural
homosexual = unnatural
I prefer the simplest answer: there is no constitutional reference or protection of "marriage" in any sense other than subsequent rulings affirming "marriage" as a fundamental right, always using the word's common law definition.
The federal government extends certain benefits and responsibilities to opposite sex couples who enter into what has been referred to as "marriage". The federal government extends certain benefits and responsibilities to a wide array of distinct populations as it sees fit; these are policy considerations and not fundamental constitutional questions.
I was certainly born with a right to form relationships and associate with whom I choose. And the federal government cannot prohibit me from entering into a relationship that is sanctioned by non-federal institutions such as churches or individual states. But the federal government is not compelled to recognize such arrangements in any special fashion, and can choose to recognize some but not others. Currently, the federal government recognizes relationships between opposite sex couples. No adult American is deprived of this option, so there are no valid constitutional arguments for same sex marriage. If the congress would like to extend marriage benefits to same sex couples, they are free to do so.
I think the msm is shocked that nobama believed their bogus statistics that a majority of the public approved of homosexual marriage. He should have known the statistics were just misinformation to dupe the majority.
Now the msm is trying to turn the fiction into fact.
My response to the SacBee...
Gays and straights have EXACTLY the same rights currently, they can marry whomever they choose of the opposite sex!
The problem is “marrying” someone of the same gender, and calling that union “marriage”. I have no problem with legal civil unions that bequeath the same advantages of marriage, but I draw the line at changing the definition of marriage and applying it to same sex unions. It’s like saying an apple is really an orange because they both grow on trees.
The term “marriage” has historically applied to the union of one man and one woman, which is the societal cornerstone of raising families and perpetuating mankind. It’s the way things have worked, and worked very well, for quite awhile now.
The bottom line for the gay lobby is to force the rest of society to declare homosexuality as “normal” through whatever means available, including tearing down all of our cherished traditions and definitions. Is this anywhere near the same tolerance gays demand from the majority? I think not.
I think the main reason is that most people, black and white back then realized that it would make it rough on the kids, because there was segregation, the mixed bloods would be shunned by both sides, and that is exactly what happened.
A man married to a man or a woman married to a woman is an abomination, or at least the man to man is and the states should not denounce God by recognizing them as marriages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.