Posted on 05/18/2012 5:56:46 AM PDT by TheRobb7
For those who want to legalize gay marriage, there is one major pitfall to consider: the Law of Unintended Consequences.
For gay marriage to be legalized, the courts would have to affirm that, from a legal standpoint, a man marrying a man is the same as a man marrying a woman.
In other words, manhood and womanhood are the same....a distinction with no legal difference.
America being the litigious nation that it has become, somebody, somewhere would bring a case to court in order to codify that very concept.
What would be the result?
If manhood and womanhood were declared equal from a legal standpoint, 60 years of women's rights would go by the wayside. To wit:
June 10, 1963 Congress passes the Equal Pay Act, making it illegal for employers to pay a woman less than what a man would receive for the same job. (If they are equal, then employers can pay anyone what they want, regardless of sex.)
1964
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bars discrimination in employment on the basis of race and sex. At the same time it establishes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to investigate complaints and impose penalties. (If they are legally equal, discrimination can't be proven.)
1967 Executive Order 11375 expands President Lyndon Johnson's affirmative action policy of 1965 to cover discrimination based on gender. As a result, federal agencies and contractors must take active measures to ensure that women as well as minorities enjoy the same educational and employment opportunities as white males. (This would end also.)
1968 The EEOC rules that sex-segregated help wanted ads in newspapers are illegal.
This ruling is upheld in 1973 by the Supreme Court, opening the way for women to apply for higher-paying jobs hitherto open only to men. (If manhood and womanhood are equal, employers can segregate all they want.)
1970 In Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., a U.S. Court of Appeals rules that jobs held by men and women need to be "substantially equal" but not "identical" to fall under the protection of the Equal Pay Act. An employer cannot, for example, change the job titles of women workers in order to pay them less than men.(Again, if they are legally equal, discrimination can't be proven.)
June 23, 1972 Title IX of the Education Amendments bans sex discrimination in schools. (The law change would apply to boys and girls, too.)
1974 The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits discrimination in consumer credit practices on the basis of sex, race, marital status, religion, national origin, age, or receipt of public assistance. (Agencies could discriminate based on sex if they wanted to.)
1978 The Pregnancy Discrimination Act bans employment discrimination against pregnant women. Under the Act, a woman cannot be fired or denied a job or a promotion because she is or may become pregnant, nor can she be forced to take a pregnancy leave if she is willing and able to work. (The glass ceiling would become iron)
1986 Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Supreme Court finds that sexual harassment is a form of illegal job discrimination. (Again, it couldn't be proven.)
2009 President Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which allows victims of pay discrimination to file a complaint with the government against their employer within 180 days of their last paycheck. Previously, victims (most often women) were only allowed 180 days from the date of the first unfair paycheck. This Act is named after a former employee of Goodyear who alleged that she was paid 15–40% less than her male counterparts, which was later found to be accurate.
As you can see, rights that have been hard-fought would eventually evaporate.....furthering the decline of our society.
What say you?
That same Law of Unintended Consequences will rear its ugly head in other, far more sickening ways.....guaranteed.
Example: the inevitable (and probably ultimately successful) passage of laws allowing bestiality and pedophilia.
Pervert groups like B4U-ACT are already working on this as we speak.
(Romney) added that “if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, even want to adopt a child — in my state, individuals of the same sex are able to adopt children. In my view, that’s something which people have the right to do, but to call that marriage is, in my view, a departure from the real meaning of the word.”
Washington Post May 10, 2012
So Willard Mitt Romney thinks homosexual sex is equal to “a loving relationship” even if he is confused on exactly what marriage is...
Very good points, thank you for posting this.
One of my key points is this though; Attorneys especially Divorce and Family Attorneys are just salivating over the though of Gay marriage. Imagine how their business would bloom and the courts themselves would need to hire more judges and clerks and associated people to handle the increase in business.
The issue of ‘gay marriage’ is an issue that seeks to re-define the meaning of civil rights to include a person’s behavior as a means of creating a protected grouping of people. As far as I know throughout our history the only groups to be covered by civil rights were groups encompassing gender and/or race with the exception of being handicapped (thus a phsycal state of being).
Why is no one questioning that it is the party of the KKK (democrats) that is now seeking to re-define civil rights when throughout history they have always been the party opposed to civil rights. What will be the legal ramifications of this act of redefining civil rights to include ‘behavior’ as a means to create protected groups of people.
This blog posting also though raises a great point as well. Is the inclusion of ‘behavior’ as a means to establish a protected group really a means of destroying civil rights or at least to make a complete mockery of civil rights. Which will weigh more in Court - a person’s race? a person’s gender? their sexual identification? how their behavior is viewed? All fo these are open ended questions that depend upon the interpretation of a judge and of course the democrats beloved trial lawyer industry.
As you can see, rights that have been hard-fought would eventually evaporate.....furthering the decline of our society.
What say you?
What is there too say? The problem begins when you call what supposedly has been hard fought, R I G H T S. Rights are self evident truths, Absolutes even.
“That among these, are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. Title 9 for example is no more a right than abortion. I like to call them manufactured rights. Man being the operative word.
True rights come from God not man. Thus the early medical termination of a pregnancy, for cosmetic reasons, could not possibly be a right, though the black robes say otherwise.
Rights are precious, and important enough to defend with our life’s blood as the founders promised each other by their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.
Anyone willing to fall on their sword for title nine for example or any of the other so called rights enumerated in this blog piece?
I’m against the legalization of gay marriage, but it is quite a stretch to say doing so would overturn the differentiation between man and woman and all the associated “protective” laws that go with that. After all, the ones who are in favor of legalizing gay marriage are mostly those in favor of so-called “women’s rights” (which really means special priviledges and man-bashing).
No, the gay male activists who are pushing “gay marriage” are NOT for women’s rights. In fact, they are some of the most hateful misogynists in the world - outside of Islam. Try some of their blogs!
They also are not interested in “marriage.” There are very few marriages going on in the places where it is legal. This is about changing our concept of what marriage is and what being a man and woman is.
where you’re making your mistake is in assuming that the Left will act consistently. No, they will lump or split as they see fit to advance their vile and Godless agenda.
I have always maintained that the institution of gay marriage will have repercussions that will not be good for anybody.
Including gay people.
What do I say?
God defines marriage, not the State. Jesus tells us that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. Scripture in many ways and places also tells us that God defines sexual morality and that people who refuse to practice that morality cannot qualify for the freely given gift of eternal life.
The State attempts to force us to recognize its power. One way is to presume the power to define who is married and who is not. We cede this power in part because we allow the State to tax incomes and estates, so to administer such taxing power, the State must define who it considers to be “married” and who is not. Just as when it defines a corporation to be a “person”, the State does not hesitate to define anyone it pleases as being “married, totally apart from how God would define it.
I don’t want a government that can tell me what I may or may not do in the privacy of my own home or relationships. In a Constitutional Republic with a provision that prohibits Congress from making any law respecting religion, I have to allow others to have their own beliefs and morality. I can only be an advocate for the morality and beliefs that I think are true. I take my understanding of sexual morality from Scripture and that is where I learn that God considers sodomy to be an abomination.
If a State decides that two (or more) people can marry, if that is all that happened, I could live with that because I don’t have to approve, change my beliefs or what beliefs I pass on to my children.
However, once gays have sufficient influence with a State to redefine marriage, gays don’t stop there. They use the State to forbid me from acting on my morality and beliefs. In fact, the State in some cases forces me to accommodation in their practices.
If I have children in public school, the State will insist on teaching them that gay marriage is just as normal as godly marriage. You will be sanctioned as a parent if you attempt to remove your child from such indoctrination.
If you run a business that could provide services to gays, you will be sanctioned if you decline to treat them as any other customer. For example, if you run a wedding photography business, you will be sanctioned if you decline to photograph a gay wedding.
In short, gays will jam their lifestyle down our throats because when the State says they are equal it is forbidden for a private citizen to dissent from that status. In doing so, they seek to force me to give them approval for something that I will never approve of. It is that last point that galls gays the most.
Curiosly, when liberal advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry , they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when Utah public schools insist on indoctrinating the children that LDS-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all, it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.
The next step will be polygamy and “group” marriage. Then they’ll lower the consent age to something truly sickening.
That may be true, but they are offset by the man-hating lesbians who are so "rabid" in their support of "women's rights".
They also are not interested in “marriage.”
Agreed. Even the ones who "marry" expect to continue having sex with others of their gender outside the "marriage". There is generally no expectation of fidelity.
Lesbians are no where as effective in their “cause” as gay men. In fact, they are generally shoved aside in all this hoopla. They are probably the only ones who “marry” and remain monogamous! Remember, there are only about 150,000 members of NOW.
Statistically speaking, that could be true. But from personal observations, it hasn't been the case.
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.